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.

Patillo v. Mazurkiewicz

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

March 12, 2015

VERNON PATILLO, Petitioner
v.
JOSEPH MAZURKIEWICZ and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents.

ORDER

JAMES KNOLL GARDNER, District Judge.

NOW, this 12th day of March, 2015, upon consideration of the following documents:

(1) Petition Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, which petition was dated February 13, 2012 and filed on February 15, 2012 (Document 1);[1]
(2) Respondents' Answer to Petition for Habeas Relief, which response was filed May 15, 2012 (Document 10);
(3) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart dated May 15, 2012 and filed May 16, 2012 (Document 11);
(4) Supplemental Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hart dated and filed October 6, 2014 (Document 31);
(4) Objection to the Magistrate's Supplemental Report and Recommendation, which objection was filed by petitioner October 24, 2014 (Document 34);

it appearing after de novo review of this matter that petitioner was given a reasonable amount of time to seek to reply to Respondents' Answer to Petition for Habeas Relief, that a stay of this matter is not appropriate and that United States Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart did not inappropriately characterize petitioner's efforts at obtaining relief in this matter,

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Hart's Supplemental Report and Recommendation are overruled.[2]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hart's Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hart's Supplemental Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pro se petition for habeas corpus relief is denied without a hearing.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner fails to demonstrate denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is denied.[3]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall close this matter 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.