REYES v. GILMORE et al
Filing
13
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 10) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. NO. 1) IS DENIED; AND A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 10/2/17. 10/2/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERVIN REYES
v.
ROBERT GILMORE, et al.
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION
No. 17-1992
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2nd day of October, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration
of Petitioner Ervin Reyes’s pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by
a Person in State Custody, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice, to which no objections have been filed, 1 it is ORDERED:
1.
The Report and Recommendation (Document 10) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED;
2.
Reyes’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 1) is DENIED; and
3.
Reyes having failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right, a certificate of appealability shall not issue.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez .
Juan R. Sánchez, J.
1
The Report and Recommendation was sent to all parties of record on August 10, 2017, together
with a Notice from the Clerk of Court advising the parties of their obligation to file any
objections within 14 days after service of the Notice. See Local R. Civ. P. 72.1 IV(b) (“Any
party may object to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings, recommendations or report under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and subsections 1(c) and (d) of this Rule within fourteen (14) days after
being served with a copy thereof.”). As of today’s date, no objections have been filed.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?