DURHAM v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA et al

Filing 7

ORDER. As stated more fully in the Memorandum Order filed herewith, the Court enters the following Order: The Petition of George R. Durham for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 4 ) is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5 ) hereby is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the District Court. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 9/6/17. (jwr)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE R. DURHAM, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ) THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) Civil Action No. 17-662 Judge Cathy Bissoon Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell MEMORANDUM ORDER This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72. On June 19, 2017, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (Doc. 5) recommending that the Petition of George R. Durham for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as a successive petition. The Report and Recommendation was served on the parties, and Petitioner has filed Objections. See Doc. 6. After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and the Objections thereto, the following Order is entered: The Petition of George R. Durham for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 4) is DISMISSED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation hereby is adopted as the Opinion of the District Court. IT IS SO ORDERED. September 6, 2017 cc (via ECF email notification): All counsel of record cc (via First-Class, U.S. Mail): GEORGE R. DURHAM HN-4394 SCI Fayette Post Office Box 9999 LaBelle, PA 15450-0999 s/Cathy Bissoon Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge

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?