Brown v. The Dist. Attorney of the Cnty. of Lancaster

Full title: YUSUF R. BROWN, Petitioner, v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF…

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

Date published: Jul 13, 2022

5:20-cv-05234-JDW (E.D. Pa. Jul. 13, 2022)

Opinion

5:20-cv-05234-JDW

07-13-2022

YUSUF R. BROWN, Petitioner, v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER, et. al., Respondents.

JOSHUA D. WOLSON, J.

ORDER

JOSHUA D. WOLSON, J.

AND NOW, this 13th day of July, 2022, upon careful and independent consideration of the pleadings and available state court records, and upon review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey (ECF No. 53) and of Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Statement Of Objections To Report And Recommendation Of United States Magistrate (ECF No. 56) and Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus Statement Of Objections To Report And Recommendation Of United States Magistrate (ECF No. 64), and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. Petitioner's Motions For Leave To File Motion To Engage Discovery To Compel Production Of Government (NCIC Warrant) (ECF Nos. 36 and 37) and his Motion To Compel Production Of Government Warrant (ECF No. 38) are DENIED;

2. Petitioner's Motion For Brady v. Maryland Claims Of Withheld Exculpatory Evidence And Perjured Testimony By Prosecution Witness(s) [sic] (ECF No. 52) is DENIED;

3. Petitioner Yusuf Brown's Objections and Amended Objections to the Report And Recommendation Of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey are OVERRULED;

4. The Report And Recommendation Of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey (ECF No. 53) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

5. The Petition For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE;

6. Petitioner's Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Pleadings To Petition For Leave To Amend Statement Of Objections To Report And Recommendations, Pursuant To F.R.Civ.P. 15(d) (ECF No. 68) is DENIED;

7. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue, in that the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the procedural aspects of this ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and

8. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed for statistical purposes.