IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
October 18, 2011
EDWARD F. KLINGER, PETITIONER
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON *FN1 ;
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, RESPONDENTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Knoll Gardner United States District Judge
NOW, this 18th day of October, 2011, upon consideration of the following documents:
(1) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner Edward F. Klinger pro se on January 31, 2011 *fn2 (Document 1);
(2) Amendment to § 2254, 28 U.S.C.A. H/Corpus, which amendment was filed by petitioner on March 21, 2011 (Document 3);
(3) "Amended Motion 06/13/2011 (Re: Case # 11cv1065) Amended Default Judgment & Failure to Respond", which amended motion was filed June 29, 2011 (Document 10), together with the August 26, 2011 Order of United States Magistrate Judge Arnold C. Rapoport denying the amended motion;
(4) Respondent's Answer to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Consolidated Memorandum of Law, which answer and memorandum were filed on August 11, 2011 (Document 12);
(5) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Arnold C. Rapoport filed August 26, 2011 (Document 14)("R&R"); and
(6) Objection to Magistrate: Arnold C. Rapoport's Decision (Time-barred by Statute[)], which objections were filed by petitioner on September 14, 2011 (Document 15); it appearing after review of this matter that Magistrate Judge Rapoport'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 Rapoport are overruled.*fn3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Rapoport is approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a 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:
James Knoll Gardner