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.

Mitchell v. Beard

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


March 24, 2010

MARK MITCHELL, PETITIONER
v.
JEFFREY BEARD, SECRETARY; 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 24th day of March, 2010, upon consideration of the following documents:

(1) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed October 12, 2006*fn1 ;

(2) Memorandum of Law in Support of § 2254 Habeas Corpus Petition, which brief was filed November 7, 2006;

(3) Respondents' Answer to Petition for Habeas Relief, which response was filed February 21, 2007;

(4) Respondents' Supplemental Answer to Petition for Habeas Relief, which response was filed September 17, 2007;

(5) Petitioner's Response to the Respondents' Supplemental Answer, which reply was filed October 5, 2007;

(6) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin filed June 30, 2008 ("R&R");

(7) Respondents' Objection to Recommendation That Certificate of Appealability Be Granted, which objection was filed July 9, 2008 ("Respondents' Objection");

(8) Petitioner's Written Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate, which objections were filed July 17, 2008 ("Petitioner's Objections"); and

(9) Respondents' Brief Answer to Petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendation, which response was filed November 20, 2009,

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R is approved and adopted in part and rejected in part.*fn2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Objections to the R&R are overruled.*fn3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the within habeas petition is denied as untimely filed without a hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents' Objection to the R&R is sustained.*fn4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because this action is time- barred, and no reasonable jurist could find this procedural ruling debatable, a certificate of appealability is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this matter 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.