Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Yarbrough v. Klopotoski

December 8, 2009

VICTOR YARBROUGH PETITIONER,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT MR. MICHAEL KLOPOTOSKI, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LYNN ABRAHAM; AND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: DuBOIS, J.

MEMORANDUM

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal from the Report and Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter dated October 30, 2009 ("R&R"). Because this Court had not yet ruled on the R&R, the Notice of Appeal was docketed as Objection to the Report and Recommendation. The Court writes at this time to address the objections.

The facts of this case are set forth in detail in the R&R of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter. They will be referenced in this Memorandum only to explain the Court's ruling on the objections.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Objection One

Petitioner claims in his first objection that he was coerced into confessing to his involvement in the robberies at issue. This objection merely restates a claim raised in the habeas petition and fails to specifically state a basis for the objection. Moreover, the claim was fully addressed in the R&R. See R&R, Claim 2(c) at pp. 14-16. This Court agrees with what is said in the R&R on this issue, and thus the objection is overruled.

B. Objection Two

Petitioner's second objection reads as follows:

"The people who was robbed saw me approximately 2 to 3 hours after they were supposingly [sic] robbed and the [sic] came to my mother's house with plenty of police officers and they clearly stated that I did not rob them and they never saw me before and I never robbed them. It was not until my co-defendant was arrested that my name was mentioned and later was I arrested."

This objection was not raised in the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and is overruled under Local Rule of Civil Procedure 72.1 IV(c). That Local Rule provides:

"All issues and evidence shall be presented to the magistrate judges, and unless the interest of justice requires it, new issues and evidence shall not be raised after the filing of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation if they could have been presented to the magistrate judge."

This Court finds that the interest of justice does not require that petitioner be permitted to present this new issue and evidence which could have ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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