IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 23, 2011
NICOLAS CROCETTO, PETITIONER
JEFFREY A. BEARD, (SUPERINTENDENT); THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF DELAWARE; 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 June, 2011, upon consideration of the following documents:
(1) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner on August 11, 2008 (Document 1); together with
Memorandum in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by petitioner on October 10, 2008 (Document 7);
(2) Commonwealth's Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by respondents on December 8, 2008 (Document 8); together with
Memorandum in Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by respondents on December 8, 2008 (Document 8);
(3) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell filed May 15, 2009 (Document 15);
(4) Objections to Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge filed by petitioner on May 27, 2009 (Document 16); and v.
(5) Response to Petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge filed by respondents on June 19, 2009 (Document 18);
it appearing after review of this matter that Magistrate Judge Angell'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 Angell are overruled. *fn1
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter closed for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Angell 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. *fn2