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.

Sloan v. Sauers

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

October 23, 2014

KEON SLOAN, Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT DEBRA SAUERS; 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 22nd day of October, 2014, upon consideration of the following documents:

(1) Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, which petition was filed by petitioner Keon Sloan pro se on October 4, 2011[1] (Document 1);
(2) Petition for Memorandum of Law filed by petitioner pro se on December 15, 2011 (Document 5);
(3) Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed by respondents on February 3, 2012 (Document 11)("Response"), together with
(A) Exhibits A through G to the Response (Documents 11-1 through 11-7);
(4) [Amended] Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, which petition was filed by petitioner pro se on March 26, 2012 (Document 17)("Amended Petition");
(5) Response to Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed by respondents on May 25, 2012 (Document 21)("Amended Response"), together with
(A) Exhibits A through I to the Amended Response (Documents 21-1 through 21-9, respectively);[2]
(6) Pro [S]e Petitioner['s] Response to Respondent's Response to [Amended Petition for] Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response to response was filed June 18, 2012 (Documents 23 and 23-1, together) ("Petitioner's Response"), together with
(A) Exhibits 1 through 3 to Petitioner's Response (Documents 23-2 through 23-4, together);
(7) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski dated and filed February 5, 2014 (Document 26);
(8) Objection Reply to Report and Recommendation, which objection was filed by petitioner pro se on February 26, 2014 (Document 30)("Petitioner's Objection");

it appearing that petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Sitarski's Report and Recommendation are a restatement of the issues raised in his underlying petitions for habeas corpus relief and are without merit; it further appearing after de novo review of this matter that Magistrate Judge Sitarski's Report and Recommendation correctly determined the legal and factual issues presented in the amended 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 petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Sitarski's Report and Recommendation are overruled.[3]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the within Amended Petition is denied without a hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner fails to demonstrate denial of a constitutional right, and no reasonable jurist could find this ruling debatable, a certificate of appealability is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case 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.