FURMAN v. SAUERS et al
Filing
42
ORDER AS FOLLOWS: THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY DATED 7/30/13, IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS FILED BY CERRONE FURMAN IS DENIED AND DISMISSED, ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 8/28/13. 8/28/13 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(fb)
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CERRONE FURMAN,
CIVIL ACTION
Petitioner,
v.
DEBRA K. SAUERS, THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF
PHILADELPHIA; and, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents.
NO. 11-4342
ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of August, 2013, upon consideration of Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey dated July 30, 2013, 1
petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Response to Petitioner’s Objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and the record in this case, IT IS
ORDERED as follows:
1.
The supplemental Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth T. Hey dated July 30, 2013, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2.
The Objections to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED
for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation;
3.
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Cerrone Furman is DENIED and
DISMISSED; and,
4.
A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not
debate this Court’s rulings as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
1
This is a supplemental Report and Recommendation. See Order dated August 29, 2012.
The Court has approved the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Elizabeth T. Hey dated July 30, 2013. Most of what is set forth in the Objections was
addressed by Magistrate Judge Hey in the Report and Recommendation, and the Court is in
complete agreement with the Report and Recommendation.
Petitioner raises a new argument in his Objections – that the victim in the case was a close
relative of a high ranking police captain. As a consequence, petitioner seeks discovery of “police
corruption.”
Local Civil Rule 72.1(IV)(c) provides as follows:
“All issues and evidence shall be presented to the magistrate judges, and unless the
interest of justice requires it, new issues and evidence shall not be raised after the
filing of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation if they could have
been presented to the magistrate judge.”
The issue of the alleged relationship between the victim and a high ranking police captain
was not presented to the magistrate judge. It was not raised until the filing of Objections to the
Report and Recommendation. The Court concludes that the interest of justice does not require it
to address that issue under the circumstances presented.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Jan E. DuBois
DuBOIS, JAN E., J.
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
