United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
September 18, 2014
TROY BAYLOR, Petitioner,
MARIROSA LAMAS, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, Respondents.
JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge.
Now, this 18th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the following documents:
1. [Amended] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, filed by petitioner pro se on June 28, 2012; together with
A. Amended Brief for Appellant;
2. Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed by respondent The District Attorney of the County of Philadelphia on August 24, 2012; together with
A. Exhibits "A" and "B" (Documents 10-1 through 10-2);
3. [P]etitioner's Response to the Commonwealth's Response, which response was filed by petitioner pro se on September 7, 2012; together with
A. Exhibit "A";
4. Petitioner['s] Amend[ed] Petition in Response to the Commonwealth's Petition and Response, which amended petition in response was filed by petitioner pro se on December 19, 2012; and
5. Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski dated and filed November 26, 2013;
it appearing that no objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sitarski; 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 a new timely petition for habeas relief if he is unable to obtain relief from state courts after exhausting his claims in his pending Pennsylvania Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9541, petition.
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.