Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Thomas v. Tennis

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


March 22, 2009

DERRICK THOMAS, PETITIONER
v.
FRANK TENNIS, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, RESPONDENTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Knoll Gardner United States District Judge

ORDER

NOW, this 22nd day of March, 2009, upon consideration of the pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, which petition was filed November 17, 2003; upon consideration of the Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed January 31, 2005; upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Arnold C. Rapoport filed April 29, 2005; upon consideration of the Memorandum and Order of Magistrate Judge Rapoport filed September 15, 2005, which Memorandum and Order amended the April 29, 2005 Report and Recommendation; upon consideration of petitioner's Amended Objections, which objections were filed July 12, 2007; upon consideration of petitioner's Supplement to the Amended Objections filed July 30, 2007; upon consideration of the Response to Petitioner's Amended Objections and Supplemental Amended Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which response was filed by respondents on August 3, 2007; upon consideration of the 'Reply' to Respondents' Response to Petitioner's Amended & Supplemental Amended Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which reply was filed by pro se petitioner on July 15, 2008; upon consideration of the Sur-reply to Reply to Respondents' Response to Petitioner's Amended Objections and Supplemental Amended Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which sur-reply was filed July 17, 2008; it appearing that petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Rapoport's Report and Recommendation are either a restatement of the issues raised in his underlying petition for habeas corpus relief, or are an attempt to untimely amend his petition,*fn1 and are without merit; it further appearing after de novo review of this matter that Magistrate Judge Rapoport's Report and Recommendation filed April 29, 2005, as amended by his September 15, 2005 Memorandum and Order, correctly determined the legal and factual issues presented in the petition for habeas corpus relief,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Rapoport's Report and Recommendation, as amended by the September 15, 2005 Memorandum and Order, is approved and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's Amended Objections and Supplement to Amended Objections to Magistrate Judge Rapoport's Report and Recommendation are both overruled.*fn2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pro se petition for habeas corpus relief is denied without a hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner fails to demonstrate either the denial of a constitutional right or that reasonable jurists would disagree with this court's disposition of his claims, a certificate of appealability is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter closed for statistical purposes.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.