IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 17, 2011
RASHAD CUNNINGHAM, PETITIONER,
JOHN KERESTES, 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 17th day of March, 2011, upon consideration of the following documents:
(1) Pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed October 10, 2007 by petitioner ("Petition")(Document 1);
(2) Motion to Stay and Hold Habeas Corpus Petition in Abeyance Pending Further Exhaustion of State Remedies, which motion was filed December 24, 2007 by petitioner (Document 6);
(3) Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed March 27, 2008 by respondents (Document 12);
(4) Petitioner's Traverse to Respondents Answer to the Petition of for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which traverse was filed June 30, 2008 (Document 15);
(5) Reply to Petitioner's Traverse to Respondents' Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which reply was filed July 2, 2008 by respondents (Document 16);
(6) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David S. Strawbridge filed August 19, 2008 ("R&R")(Document 17);
(7) Petitioner's Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, which objections were filed October 15, 2008 ("Objections") (Document 20); and
(8) Response to Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which response was filed October 16, 2008 by respondents (Document 21);
it appearing after de novo review of this matter that Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's Report and Recommendation correctly determined the legal and factual issues presented in the petition for habeas corpus relief, *fn1
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's Report and Recommendation are overruled.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied 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. *fn2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter closed for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
James Knoll Gardner