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.

Duckett v. Pitkins

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

March 30, 2017

CHRISTOPHER LEE DUCKETT, Petitioner
v.
MR. DAVID PITKINS, SUPERINTENDENT; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, SETH WILLIAMS; and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE [SIC OF PENNSYLVANIA, KATHLEEN KANE, Respondents

          ORDER

          James Knoll Gardner United States District Judge

         NOW, this 30th day of March, 2017, upon consideration of the following documents:

         (1) Form for Use in Applications for Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which form was filed by petitioner pro se on June 12, 2014 ("Petition") (Document 1);

         (2) Amended Petition to Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec 2244 File[d] on June 12, 2014, which amended petition was filed by petitioner pro se on November 7, 2014 ("Amended Petition") (Document 13); (3) Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed December 17, 2014 ("Response") (Document 16);

         (4) Supplemental Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which supplemental response was filed August 24, 2015 ("Supplemental Response") (Document 34);

         (5) Amended for Habeas Corpus Relief to Article 1, Section 14, of Pennsylvania Constitution and Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which amended petition was filed by petitioner pro se on October 19, 2015 ("Second Amended Petition") (Document 36);

         (6) Amended for Habeas Corpus Relief Co Article 1, Section 14, of Pennsylvania Constitution and under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which amended petition was filed by petitioner pro se on August 10, 2016 ("Third Amended Petition") (Document 38);

         (7) Report and Recommendation of United states Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin dated and filed September 30, 2016 ("R&R") (document 39); and

         (8) Objection to Report and Recommendation, which Objections were filed by petitioner pro se on October 28, 2016 ("Objections"} (Document 43); it appearing that the Objections are a restatement of the arguments raised in the Petition and subsequent amendments; it further appearing, after a de novo review of this matter, [1] that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Perkin correctly determined the pertinent legal and factual issues presented in the Petition, IT IS ORDERED that the Objections are overruled.[2]

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Perkin is approved and adopted.

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition, Amended Petition, Second Amended Petition, and Third Amended Petition are denied.[3]

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, because 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 ...


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.