Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Saunders v. Mahally

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

January 24, 2017

LAMONT SAUNDERS, Petitioner
v.
LARRY MAHALLY; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE [sic] OF PENNSYLVANIA; and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, Respondents

          ORDER

          James Knoll Gardner United States District Judge.

         NOW, this 24th day of January, 2017, upon consideration of the following documents:[1]

(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 pro se on May 27, 2016 (“Petition”), [2] together with
(a) Memorandum of Law in Support of Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition Filed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254;
(2) Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed September 23, 2016 (“Response”);
(3) Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski dated and filed December 29, 2016 (“R&R”); and
(4) Petitioner's Objection to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne. A. Sitarski, Filed December 29, 2016, which Objection was filed by petitioner pro se on January 10, 2016[3] (“Objections”),

         it appearing that petitioner's Objections to Magistrate Judge Sitarski's Report and Recommendation are essentially a restatement of arguments raised in his Petition; it further appearing after a de novo review[4] of this matter, Magistrate Judge Sitarski's Report and Recommendation correctly determined the legal and factual issues presented in the Petition, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sitarski are overruled.[5]

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation is approved and adopted.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition is denied with prejudice.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.