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.

Rankine v. Overmyer

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

September 30, 2014

DERRICK RANKINE, Petitioner
v.
MICHAEL OVERMYER, [1] THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents

ORDER

JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge.

NOW, this 30th day of September, 2014, upon consideration of the following documents:

1) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody ("Petition"), filed by petitioner pro se on October 3, 2007 (Document 6);
2) [Memorandum in Support of] Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254, which memorandum was filed by petitioner pro se on November 5, 2007 ("Memorandum in Support of Petition") (Document 7);
3) Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed by respondents on February 25, 2008 (Document 21); together with
a) Exhibits A through J (Documents 21-1 through 21-10);
4) Supplemental Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which supplemental response was filed by respondents on February 28, 2008 (Document 22); together with
a) Exhibits A and B (Documents 22-1 and 22-2);
5) Reply Brief, filed by petitioner pro se on April 3, 2008 ("Petitioner's Reply Brief") (Document 30);
6) Supplemental Reply Brief, filed by petitioner pro se on April 7, 2008 ("Petitioner's Supplemental Reply Brief") (Document 31);
7) Second Supplemental Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed by respondents on May 16, 2012 (Document 73);
8) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey dated and filed June 29, 2012 ("R&R") (Document 74);[2]
9) Objection[s] to Magistrate Judge Report and Recommendation, filed by petitioner pro se on July 5, 2012 (Document 76);
10) Petitioner Derrick Rankine[s Request for Leave to File Affidavits 1A* and 1B*], which request was filed by petitioner pro se on August 8, 2012 (Document 78); together with
a) Affidavit 1A* of Derrick Rankine (Document 78); and
b) Affidavit 1B* of Derrick Rankine (Document 78);
11) Petition for Leave of Court to File Affidavits 2A1 and 2A2 of Derrick Rankine, which petition was filed by petitioner pro se on January 14, 2013 (Document 79); together with
a) Affidavit 2A1 of Derrick Rankine (Document 79); and
b) Affidavit 2A2 of Derrick Rankine filed January 18, 2013 (Document 80);
12) Petition for Leave of Court to File Affidavits M-1, M-2, M-3, and M-4 to Correct Trial and State Court Records, which petition was filed by petitioner pro se on January 28, 2013 (Document 81); together with
a) Affidavit M-1 of Derrick Rankine (Document 81);
b) Affidavit M-2 of Derrick Rankine (Document 81);
c) Affidavit M-3 of Derrick Rankine (Document 81); and
d) Affidavit M-4 of Derrick Rankine (Document 81);

it appearing that petitioner's requests, listed above as Documents 10, 11, and 12, all seek leave of court to file certain affidavits of petitioner, which petitioner attached to his requests; it further appearing that such affidavits (Affidavits 1A*, 1B*, 2A1, 2A2, M-1, M-2, M-3, and M-4) do not offer new facts or legal argument, but rather reassert facts and argument which are contained in petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody;[3] it further appearing that petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Hey's Report and Recommendation are, with the exception of the objection discussed in footnote 5 below, a restatement of arguments raised by petitioner in his Petition, Memorandum in Support of Petition, Petitioner's Reply Brief, and Petitioner's Supplemental Reply Brief; it further appearing, after de novo review of this matter, [4] that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hey correctly determined the pertinent 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 Hey are overruled.[5]

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is dismissed 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, and because petitioner fails to demonstrate denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Derrick Rankine[s Request for Leave to File Affidavits 1A* and 1B*] is dismissed as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Leave of Court to File Affidavits 2A1 and 2A2 of Derrick Rankine is dismissed as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Leave of Court to File Affidavits M-1, M-2, M-3, and M-4 to Correct Trial and State Court Records is dismissed as moot.

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.