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.

Jones v. Curley

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

May 5, 2014

HOWARD S. JONES, JR., Petitioner
v.
MICHAEL CURLEY, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA; and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE [COMMONWEALTH] OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents

ORDER

JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge.

NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2014, upon consideration of the following documents:

(1) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Form [Petition] for Use in Applications for Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254), which petition was filed April 27, 2011 ("Petition"); together with
(A) Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus Petition;
(2) Response by Michael Curley, et al, to Defendant's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response to petition was filed June 30, 2011;
(3) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin filed July 7, 2011 ("R&R")
(4) Petitioner's Reply to Commonwealth's Time Bar Defense, which reply was filed October 3, 2011; and
(5) Application for Relief Amending Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendations, ("Objections"), which application was filed December 18, 2011,

it appearing after review of this matter that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Perkin 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 Perkin are overruled.[1]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Perkin is approved and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice as untimely, 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, a certificate of appealability is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter closed for statistical purposes.


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.