IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
February 25, 2011
MAURICE SHOATZ, ALSO KNOWN AS "MARK MITCHELL",
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO (SUPERINTENDENT); 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
NOW, this 23rd day of February, 2011, upon consideration of the following documents:
(1) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner Maurice Shoatz pro se on December 21, 2007 (Document 1) *fn1 ;
(2) Memorandum of Law filed by petitioner on February 4, 2008 (Document 6);
(3) Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed by respondents on June 12, 2008 (Document 19);
(4) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin filed June 13, 2008 (Document 22);
(5) Objection to Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings, Recommendations or Report Under 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B), which objection was filed by petitioner on June 23, 2008 (Document 23);
(6) Response to Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which response was filed by the respondents on August 24, 2009 (Document 25);
it appearing after review of this matter that Magistrate Judge Perkin's Report and Recommendation correctly determined the legal and factual issues presented in the petition for habeas corpus relief,
IT IS ORDERED that the objections of petitioner to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Perkin are overruled. *fn2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Perkin is approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without a hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner has not met statutory requirements to have his case heard, and no reasonable jurist could find this procedural ruling debatable, and because petitioner fails to demonstrate denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter closed for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT: