From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pearson v. Tice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nov 6, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-04220 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-04220

11-06-2019

ISAAC BILAL PEARSON, Petitioner, v. ERIC TICE, SUPERINTENDENT, SCI SOMERSET, et al., Respondents.


ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of November 2019, upon consideration of Pearson's pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), the Commonwealth's Response (ECF No. 15), Pearson's Reply (ECF No. 16), United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21), Pearson's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 23) and the State Court Record (ECF No. 25), the Court ORDERS that:

The Court reviewed de novo the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Pearson objected. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 21) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. Pearson's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 23) are OVERRULED;

Pearson's objections reiterate arguments that Judge Sitarski correctly rejected in her Report and Recommendation and are overruled for the reasons Judge Sitarski stated. To the extent that Pearson objects that the Report and Recommendation did not address his claim that Attorney Long was ineffective on direct appeal, the Court overrules this objection because Pearson fails to explain how the state court's opinion rejecting that argument, see Commonwealth v. Pearson, No. 4988 EDA 2015 at *3-5 (Pa. Commw. Ct., July 16, 2018) (unpublished), was "contrary to" or entailed "an unreasonable application" of Supreme Court precedent or was based "on an unreasonable determination of the facts" in the record before it, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). --------

3. Pearson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED;

4. Pearson's request for a certificate of appealability is DENIED because reasonable jurists would not debate (a) that Pearson failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, or (b) the correctness of the Court's procedural rulings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and

5. The Clerk of Court shall MARK the case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gerald J . Pappert

GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.


Summaries of

Pearson v. Tice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nov 6, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-04220 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2019)
Case details for

Pearson v. Tice

Case Details

Full title:ISAAC BILAL PEARSON, Petitioner, v. ERIC TICE, SUPERINTENDENT, SCI…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Nov 6, 2019

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-04220 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 6, 2019)