SMITH v. CAPOZZA et al
Filing
6
ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of the court. Ordered that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed; 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 12/7/15. (rtw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LA VON CECIL SMITH, EZ-5402,
Petitioner,
)
)
)
)
V.
2:15-cv-1449
)
)
)
MS. KATHLEEN KANE, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2015, after the petitioner, Lavon Cecil Smith,
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, Petitioner's objections (ECF No. 5) having been considered and
rejected as meritless, and upon independent review of the petition and the record and upon
consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No.4), which is adopted
as the opinion ofthis Court,
IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus filed by petitioner (ECF
No.3) 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)(l) ofthe 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.
United States District Judge
cc:
LA VON CECIL SMITH
EZ-5402, FA-406 SCI Pittsburgh
Post Office Box 99991
Pittsburgh, PA 15233
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?