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.

Wooden v. Commonwealth

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

December 11, 2014

RAYMOND C. WOODEN, Petitioner
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

ORDER

JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge.

Now, this 9th day of December, 2014, upon consideration of the following documents:

1) § 2241 Habeas Corpus Petition Form To Be Used By Prisoners in Actions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed by petitioner pro se on October 22, 2013 ("Habeas Corpus Petition"); together with
2) Issues and Grounds the Defendant Raises for Relief Pursuant to the Habeas Corpus 2241, filed by petitioner pro se on January 31, 2014;
3) Evidence and Exhibit Presentation Continuation, filed by petitioner pro se on February 24, 2014;
4) Evidence Presentation Photographs and Reports from A-1 Investigation, filed by petitioner pro se on April 14, 2014;
5) Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by respondent on April 15, 2014; together with
a) Exhibits A through G;
6) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart dated and filed April 21, 2014;
7) Objections to Magistrate Report and Recommendation, filed by petitioner pro se on May 7, 2014; and
8) Motion to Sanction the Commonwealth and Grant Relief for Failure to Respond with an Answer by the Deadline So Ordered, filed by petitioner pro se on March 24, 2014;

it appearing that petitioner filed his Habeas Corpus Petition challenging his pre-trial detention at the Philadelphia Industrial Correctional Center ("PICC") in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;[1] it further appearing that petitioner's Habeas Corpus Petition asserts four Fourth Amendment claims; it further appearing that petitioner has filed two objections to Magistrate Judge Hart's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"); it further appearing, after de novo review of this matter, [2] that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hart 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 Hart are overruled.[3]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hart 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's Motion to Sanction the Commonwealth and Grant Relief for Failure to Respond with an Answer by the Deadline So Ordered is denied.[4]

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.