CRUMBLEY v. SAUERS et al
Filing
15
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RAPOPORT, AND THAT THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF IS DENIED WITHOUT AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND THAT A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS MATTER CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 10/18/11. 10/19/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' RESPONDENTS AND E-MAILED.(ky, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BARRY CRUMBLEY,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
DEBRA K. SAUERS;
)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; )
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
)
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; and )
DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF LEHIGH
)
COUNTY,
)
)
Respondents
)
Civil Action
No. 10-cv-03639
O R D E R
NOW, this 18th day of October, 2011, upon consideration
of the following documents:
(1) Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed
by petitioner Barry Crumbley pro se on July 14,
20101 (Document 1);
(2) Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, which response was filed by respondents on
December 7, 2010 (Document 12); and
(3) Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Arnold C. Rapoport filed July 14,
2011 (Document 13);
it appearing that as of the date of this Order no objections have
been filed to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
1
Although the docket entries reflect that the petition for writ of
habeas corpus was filed July 23, 2010, I issued an Order filed August 3, 2010
explaining that petitioner Barry Crumbley included correspondence dated
July 14, 2010 with his petition, suggesting that he also executed the petition
on that date. Pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, and consistent with
Magistrate Judge Rapoport’s determination, this court will consider the date
of filing as July 14, 2010. The prison mailbox rule deems a motion to have
been filed on the date the petitioner delivered his petition to prison
officials to mail. Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1997).
Rapoport; it further appearing after review of this matter that
Magistrate Judge Rapoport’s thorough, comprehensive and
persuasive Report and Recommendation correctly determined the
legal and factual issues presented in the petition for habeas
corpus relief,
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Rapoport’s Report
and Recommendation is approved and adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for habeas
corpus relief is denied without an evidentiary 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 ruling debatable, and because
petitioner fails to demonstrate denial of a constitutional right,
a certificate of appealability is denied.2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall
mark this matter closed for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ James Knoll Gardner
James Knoll Gardner
United States District Judge
2
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 1604,
146 L.Ed.2d 542, 555 (2000).
-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?
