Brome v. Ransom

Full title: DAMEON BROME, Petitioner, v. RANSOM, et al., Respondents.

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 14, 2022

Civil Action 20-2509 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 14, 2022)

Opinion

Civil Action 20-2509

03-14-2022

DAMEON BROME, Petitioner, v. RANSOM, et al., Respondents.

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

ORDER

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

AND NOW, this 14^th day of March 2022, upon careful and independent consideration of Petitioner Dameon Brome's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 5), the Respondents' response in opposition (ECF No. 15), the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, and Petitioner's Response to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 23), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. Mr. Brome's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice by separate Judgment, filed contemporaneously with this Order. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a); Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 12;

3. No certificate of appealability shall issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) because “the applicant has [not] made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right[, ]” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), since he has not demonstrated that “reasonable jurists” would find my “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see United States v. Cepero, 224 F.3d 256, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2000), abrogated on other grounds by Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012); and

4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this file CLOSED.