SIMMS v. GARMAN et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 15 Report and Recommendation. After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and the Objections thereto, it hereby is ORDERED that Shawn Michael Simms's habeas petition is DISMISSED; a certificate of appealability is DENIED; and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the District Court. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 10/18/18. (wss)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SHAWN MICHAEL SIMMS, Petitioner, v. MARK GARMAN, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) } ) ) ) Civil Action No. 17-1063 Judge Cathy Bissoon Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan MEMORANDUM ORDER This case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(l)(A) and (B), and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72. On April 19, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (Doc. 15) recommending that Shawn Michael Simms’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 3) be dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability be denied. Service of the Report and Recommendation was made, and Petitioner filed Objections. See Doc. 16. After a de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and the Objections thereto, it hereby is ORDERED that Shawn Michael Simms’s habeas petition is DISMISSED; a certificate of appealability is DENIED; and the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the District Court. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. October 18, 2018 s\Cathy Bissoon Cathy Bissoon United States District Judge cc (via First-Class U.S. Mail): Shawn Michael Simms JP4037 Box A Bellefonte, PA 16823 2

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?