Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Lawson v. Overmyer

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 19, 2014

TYREE LAWSON, Petitioner
v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI FOREST M. OVERMYER, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, and THE ATTORNEY GENEREAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Respondents

ORDER

JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge.

NOW, this 18th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the following documents:

(1) Petition Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, which petition was filed by petitioner pro se on March 4, 2010 ("Petition");[1]
(2) Memorandum in Support of Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Relief, which memorandum was filed by petitioner pro se on May 12, 2014 ("Memorandum in Support of Petition"), together with
Exhibits A through X to the Memorandum in Support of Petition;
(3) Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed by respondents on May 21, 2014 ("Response"), together with
Exhibits A through C to the Response;
(4) Petitioner's Opposition to Respondent's May 21, 2014 Filed Response and Request for Issuance of Habeas Relief, which opposition was filed June 13, 2014 ("Petitioner's Opposition to Response"), together with
Exhibits A through P to Petitioner's Opposition to Response;
(5) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey dated July 28, 2014 and filed July 29, 2014 ("R&R");
(6) Petitioner's Objection to the Report & Recommendation, which objections were filed August 15, 2014 ("Petitioner's Objections"), together with
Exhibits A through V to Petitioner's Objections; and
(7) Application for Correction of Omitted & or Unintelligentable (sic) Assertion, which application was filed by petitioner pro se on August 28, 2014 ("Petitioner's Application");

it appearing that Petitioner's Application seeks to make one amendment and one correction to Petitioner's Objections; it further appearing that the purported objections of petitioner to Magistrate Judge Hey's Report and Recommendation are, with the exception of the objection discussed in footnote 3 below, a restatement of arguments raised by petitioner in the Petition, Memorandum in Support of Petition, and Petitioner's Opposition to Response; it further appearing, after de novo review of this matter, [2] that the Report and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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