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)
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?