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.

Rivers v. Mahally

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

October 27, 2014

TYREEM M. RIVERS, Petitioner,
v.
LAWRENCE MAHALLY, [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 24th day of October, 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 May 14, 2007 (Document 1);
2) Memorandum of Law in Support of Habeas Corpus Petition, which memorandum was filed by petitioner pro se on August 9, 2007 ("Memorandum in Support of Petition") (Documents 6 through 6-1);
a) Exhibits A through L (Documents 6-1 through 6-2);
3) Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed by respondents on November 5, 2007 (Document 9); together with
a) Exhibits A through D (Documents 9-1 through 9-4);
4) This Petitioner['] Response to the District Attorney's Response to His Memorandum of Law in Support of His Habeas Corpus Petition, which response was filed by petitioner pro se on May 5, 2008 ("Petitioner's Response") (Document 18); together with
a) Exhibit M (Document 18-1);
5) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge dated and filed June 25, 2008 ("R&R") (Document 20);
6) Petitioner[']s Objection[s] to the Magistrate's Defective Report and Recommendation, which objections were filed by petitioner pro se on July 17, 2008 ("Petitioner's Objections") (Document 23);
7) Response to Objections to Report and Recommendation, which response was filed by respondents on December 5, 2008 (Document 26);
8) [Letter] Motion for Reconsideration Granting Petitioner to Seek Leave to Amend/Supplement Habeas Petition, which letter motion from petitioner was dated September 3, 2014 ("Letter Motion for Reconsideration");[2]

it appearing that petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Strawbridge's Report and Recommendation are, with the exception of the objections discussed in footnote 5 below, a restatement of arguments raised by petitioner in his Petition, Memorandum in Support of Petition, and Petitioner's Response; it further appearing, after de novo review of this matter, [3] that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Strawbridge correctly determined the pertinent legal and factual issues presented in the petition for habeas corpus relief,

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's [Letter] Motion for Reconsideration Granting Petitioner to Seek Leave to Amend/Supplement Habeas Petition is denied.[4]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the objections of petitioner to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Strawbridge are overruled.[5]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Strawbridge 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 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.