DAVIS v. MAHALLY et al

Filing 11

ORDERED THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING; THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILTIY AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CYNTHIA M. RUFE ON 11/7/17. 11/18/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd )

IN THE UNITED ST ATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALI ELIJAH DAVIS
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1648

v.
LAWRENCE MAHALLY, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day ofNovember 2017, upon careful and independent consideration

of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and all related filings, and upon review rthe Report
and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice, to which no
objections have been filed, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED 1;

2.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH P

JUDICE

and without an evidentiary hearing;
I

3.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability2 ; an~

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.

It is so ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

~CA,

CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

1110.

1

Petitioner was convicted of three counts of murder and conspiracy for his involvement in a November
2007 triple homicide. Petitioner was sentenced to three life terms without the possibility of parole. In July 2011, the
Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed, and in May 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme'Court denied review. Petitioner
now seeks federal habeas relief, arguing that (1) the police violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching his
cell phone without a warrant, (2) his counsel was ineffective for failing to provide the defense expert with
videotapes of his police confession, and (3) his sentences of life without parole violate the Eighth 4mendment. As
explained in the R&R, these claims are noncognizable, procedurally defaulted, or meritless.
__[
2

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; there is no basis for
concluding that "reasonable jurists could debate whether ... the petition should have been resolved! in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation omitted).