United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
October 7, 2014
CHARLES TURNER, Petitioner,
JEROME WALSH, WARDEN, S.C.I. DALLAS, Respondent.
KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.
Petitioner's motion at docket no.37 to alter or amend the judgment denying the habeas corpus petition and a certificate of appealability was referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C.§ 636, and Local Rule 72 for Magistrate Judges.
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on August 4, 2014, docket no. 40, recommending that the motion be denied on the merits and that a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal at docket no. 39 be denied as unnecessary. The Report and Recommendation also addressed Rule 60 motions filed at Turner v. Lavan, Case No. 3:01-cv-373-KRG-KAP (W.D.Pa. September 17, 2004, certificate of appealability denied No. 04-3985 (3d Cir. February 25, 2005), cert. denied, No. 05-5253 (U.S. October 3, 2005) and Turner v. Lavan, Case No. 3:01-cv-374-KRG-KAP (W.D.Pa. September 17, 2004, certificate of appealability denied No. 04-4005 (3d Cir. February 25, 2005), cert. denied, No. 05-5192 (U.S. October 3, 2005).
The petitioner was notified that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1), he had fourteen days to serve and file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner filed objections that had the captions of the two habeas matters from 2001, but did not file objections at this caption. I nevertheless have reviewed all the pleadings filed by petitioner and find no reason to alter the judgment.
After de novo review of the record of this matter and the Report and Recommendation hthefollowing order is entered: this 7 day of October, 2 014, it is
AND NOW, this 7th day of October, 2014, it is
ORDERED that the petitioner's motion to alter or amend the judgment, docket no. 37, is denied. The motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal, docket no. 39, is denied as unnecessary. The motion for a certificate of appealability, docket no. 41, is denied. The Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court.