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.

Kenneth Williams v. Donald T. Vaughn

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


January 11, 2011

KENNETH WILLIAMS, PETITIONER,
v.
DONALD T. VAUGHN, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT GRATERFORD; DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR LEHIGH COUNTY; AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, RESPONDENTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jan E. Dubois, J.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 11th day of January 2011, upon consideration of petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Consolidated Preliminary Memorandum of Law (Document No. 49, filed December 14, 2009), Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 56, filed April 20, 2010) and Petitioner's Traverse (Document No. 61, filed June 1, 2010), after review of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells (Document No. 62, dated September 29, 2010, filed September 30, 2010), Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Document No. 66, filed November 15, 2010) and Letter of Joan L. Reinsmith, counsel for respondent (Document No. 67, filed November 17, 2010), for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum dated January 11, 2011, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells dated September 29, 2010 is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;

2. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 49, filed December 14, 2009) is DENIED;

3. Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells dated September 29, 2010 are OVERRULED; and

4. A certificate of appealability will not issue for any of petitioner's claims because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

BY THE COURT:

Hon. Jan E. DuBois

20110111

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



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.