TIRADO v. SUPERINTENDENT SOMMERS SCI@ WAYMART et al

Filing 18

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 14 IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 IS DENIED; PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL 9 IS DENIED; AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK SHALL MARK THIS CASE AS CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE PETRESE B. TUCKER ON 5/9/18. 5/9/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(ti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROGER J. TIRADO,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Petitioner,
v.
JACK SOMMERS, et al.,
Respondents.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 17-0194

ORDER
AND NOW, this __9th__ day of May, 2018, upon careful consideration of the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), Respondents’ Response in Opposition thereto (Doc. 8),
Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 9), Petitioner’s Response to the Court’s
May 5, 2017 Order (Doc. 13), the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate
Judge Elizabeth T. Hey (Doc. 14), and Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 17), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED;

1

Petitioner filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Hey’s Report and Recommendation.
Pet.’s Obj., Doc. 17. The objection largely reiterates two arguments Petitioner has made in other
filings: (1) that his trial should have been severed, Pet.’s Resp. to Order, Doc. 13, and (2) that he
should be appointed counsel, Pet.’s Mot. for Counsel, Doc. 9.
Although Judge Hey found that Petitioner’s severance claim was timely because it related
back to Petitioner’s other claims, she also found that the severance claim is unexhausted because
it was not raised on direct appeal or in collateral proceedings. Judge Hey nevertheless
determined that there would have been no basis to sever Petitioner’s case. Judge Hey also
considered Petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel and determined that because
Petitioner’s claims are not unusually complex and because he has articulately set forth his
arguments, appointment of counsel is not necessary.
In short, Petitioner’s objections have been adequately addressed in the Report and
Recommendation itself.
1

3.

Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 9) is DENIED; and

4.

There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED
for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Petrese B. Tucker
____________________________
Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

2