Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Paul Q. Griffin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


August 8, 2012

PAUL Q. GRIFFIN, PETITIONER,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 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: Jan E. Dubois, J.

ORDER

AND NOW , this 8th day of August, 2012, upon consideration of pro se petitioner's Motion for Relief from Order of July 14, 2011 (Document No. 18, filed September 29, 2011), pro se petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Amended Motion for Relief from Order of July 14, 2011, or Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 20, filed October 12, 2011), the Supplemental Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski dated June 14, 2012 (Document No. 28, filed June 14, 2012), and pro se petitioner's Objection to Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Document No. 32, filed July 30, 2012), IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Supplemental Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski dated June 14, 2012, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. Pro se petitioner's Objection to Supplemental Report and Recommendation is OVERRULED;

3. Pro se petitioner's Motion for Leave to File Amended Motion for Relief from Order of July 14, 2011, or Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to petitioner's right to seek authorization from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to file a second or successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2244(b)(3)(A);

4. Pro se petitioner's Motion for Relief from July 14, 2011, is DENIED;

5. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right or this Court's procedural rulings with respect to petitioner's claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

BY THE COURT:

Jan E. DuBois

20120808

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.