Williams v. Coleman

Full title: LEON WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. BRIAN COLEMAN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF…

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

Date published: Jan 22, 2013

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1591 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 22, 2013)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-1591

01-22-2013

LEON WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. BRIAN COLEMAN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents.

DuBOIS, JAN E

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 2013, upon consideration of pro se petitioner, Leon Williams' Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Document No. 1, filed March 29, 2012), the respondents' Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document No. 4, filed May 31, 2012), Petitioner's Response to Pleading Filed May 31, 2012 and Request to Resume with 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition (Document No. 5, filed June 20, 2012), and available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge dated December 28, 2012, and Petitioner's Objections to the United States Magistrate's Report and Recommendation Entered on December 28, 2012 (Document No. 14, filed January 11, 2013), IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge dated December 28, 2012, APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2. Petitioner's Objections to the United States Magistrate's Report and Recommendation Entered on December 28, 2012, are OVERRULED on the ground that the issues raised in the Objections were properly addressed and decided in the Report and Recommendation;

3. The Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by pro se petitioner, Leon Williams, is DISMISSED on the ground that all of petitioner's claims have been procedurally defaulted;

4. A certificate of appealability shall not issue in that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of this Court's rulings as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

5. Pro se petitioner's "Request to Resume with 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition" is DENIED AS MOOT; and,

6. The Clerk of Court shall MARK this case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

_________________

DuBOIS, JAN E ., J.