IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 14, 2012
TROY BAYLOR, PETITIONER
MIRIROSA LAMAS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AND THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, RESPONDENTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: James Knoll Gardner United States District Judge
Now, this 14th day of March, 2012, upon consideration of the following documents:
1. Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, which petition was filed by petitioner pro se on February 14, 2011; *fn1
2. Brief of Appellant, filed by petitioner pro se on March 30, 2011;
3. Amended Brief for Appellant, filed by petitioner pro se April 11, 2011;
4. Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed by respondents on April 13, 2011, together with Exhibits A-D;
5. Plaintiff[']s Response to Defendants['] Answer Dated April 13, 2011, which response was filed by petitioner pro se on April 28, 2011;
6. Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski filed August 8, 2011;
7. Memorandum in Support of Habeas Corpus, Order for Immediate Release From Imprisonment and Judicial Review of Administrative Record, which memorandum was filed by petitioner pro se on September 30, 2011;
it appearing that no objections have been filed to the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sitarski; *fn2
it further appearing after review of this matter that
Magistrate Judge Sitarski's Report and Recommendation correctly
determined the legal and factual issues presented in the petition for
habeas corpus relief,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Sitarski's Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for habeas corpus relief is dismissed without prejudice for petitioner to file an appropriate application for writ of habeas corpus in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner has not met statutory requirements to have his case heard, and no reasonable jurist could find this ruling debatable, 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