CONLEY v. WALSH et al

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 8 Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of the court. Ordered that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED; a Certificate of Appealability is denied; and Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Fed Rules of Appellate Procedure, if any party wishes to appeal from this Order a notice of appeal, as provided in Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, must be filed with the Clerk of Court within 30 days. Signed by Judge Maurice B. Cohill on 11/25/2013. (rtw)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SHAWN CONLEY, Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) vs. JEROME WALSH, et al., Respondents. Civil Action No. 13-1521 ORDER .... ~ AND NOW, this '1-:' day ofNovember, 2013, after the petitioner, Shawn Conley, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge granting the parties a period of time after being served with a copy to file written objections thereto, and upon consideration of the objections filed by the petitioner, and upon independent review of the petition and the record and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No.8), which is Adopted as the Opinion of this Court, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner (ECF No. 5) is dismissed and, because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(I) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure if the petitioner desires to appeal from this Order he must do so within thirty (30) days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 3, Fed. R. App. P. J«~' ~ ~ ~:X~J Maurice B. Cohill United States District Judge cc: Shawn Conley CW-6224 1000 Follies Road Dallas, P A 18612

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?