GALLOWAY v. LINK et al

Filing 13

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 100 IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; MR. GALLOWAY'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF DOC. NO. 1) IS DENIED. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARK A. KEARNEY ON 12/18/17. 12/18/17 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
MARK GALLOWAY,
Petitioner,
CIVIL ACTION

v.
CYNTHIA LINK, et al.,

N0.17-2195
Respondents. :
'

ORDER
AND NOW, this

18th

day of December 2017, upon careful and independent

consideration of Mr. Galloway's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(ECF Doc. No. 2), United States Chief Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa's comprehensive
Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. No. 10), and Mr. Galloway's prose objections to Judge
Caracappa's Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. No. 11), it is ORDERED:
1.

Chief Judge Caracappa's Report and Recommendation (ECF Doc. No. 10) is

APPROVED and ADOPTED. 1
2.

Mr. Galloway's Petition for a writ for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(ECF Doc. No. 1) is DENIED as to each of his five grounds for relief following his guilty plea
to four counts of criminal attempt homicide, five counts of aggravated assault, persons not to
1

Mr. Galloway argues: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for facilitating an unknowing,
involuntary and unintelligent plea in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; (2)
violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and Sixth Amendment right to
counsel because of failure to appoint or retain trial counsel to act as counsel; (3) violation of his
due process rights when a judge who did not adjudicate his Petition for Modification (construed
as a Post-Conviction Relief Act Petition) dismissed his petition; (4) denial of due process and
equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment when trial counsel allegedly presented
fraudulent testimony and allegedly committed perjury during the Post-Conviction Relief Act
hearing; and (5) violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments when trial counsel failed to
advance a meritorious suppression motion and failed to raise this claim on collateral review. We
reviewed each of Mr. Galloway's claims, Chief Judge Caracappa's Report and Recommendation,
and Mr. Galloway's objections. Chief Judge Caracappa's detailed report fully addressed each of
his claims and there is no merit in Mr. Galloway's petition.

possess or use firearms, and obliteration of marks of identification, and exhaustion of state
appellate rights challenging his sentence, which Chief Judge Caracappa fully addressed in her
comprehensive Report and Recommendation and, following our independent review, we find no
basis for sustaining Mr. Galloway's arguments;
3.
4.

2

There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability2 ; and,
The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

2