IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
December 22, 2010
DAVID DEWEES RICHARDSON
JOSEPH F. MAZURKIEWICZ, JR., ET AL. RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: C. Darnell Jones, II J.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of December, 2010, upon consideration of: David Richardson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1); Respondents' Answer thereto (Doc. No. 7); Petitioner's Response to Respondents' Answer (Doc. Nos. 8 & 9); Magistrate Judge Arnold C.
Rapoport's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 10); and, Petitioner's Objections thereto (Doc. No. 11), it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that:
(1) Defendant's Objection regarding the issue of "inordinate delay" is OVERRULED and the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;*fn1
(2) Petitioner's Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without an evidentiary hearing;
(3) There exists no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right which would require the issuance of a certificate of appealability; and,
(4) The Clerk shall close this matter for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
Repeatedly, courts, both within and outside of the Third Circuit, have held that objections which merely rehash an argument presented to and considered by a magistrate judge are not entitled to de novo review.
Morgan v. Astrue, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101092, at ** 7-8 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2009)(citations omitted).
Inasmuch as the exact issue that forms the basis for Petitioner's Objection has already been presented to and considered by Judge Rapoport and Petitioner is not presenting any new information that has not already been considered, said Objection is not entitled to de novo review. Moreover, after reviewing the record for its own edification, this Court finds that under any circumstances, Petitioner's Objection is without merit and must be overruled. As Judge Rapoport correctly pointed out, the trial court has recently taken steps to advance its disposition of Petitioner's claims at the state level and Petitioner's numerous pro se filings throughout the collateral review process have no doubt hindered the trial court's ability to more expeditiously dispose of the Petition at issue.