BODDIE v. OBERLANDER

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ALFONSO BODDIE, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION D. OBERLANDER, et al., NO. 20-2920 Respondents. ORDER AND NOW, this 15th day of August 2023, upon consideration of Alfonso

Boddie’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 1), the Commonwealth’s Response (ECF 8), Boddie’s Objections to the Commonwealth’s Response (ECF 11) and the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge (ECF 18), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Boddie’s Motion for a Stay and/or Extension of Time (ECF 31) is DENIED. 2. The Report and Recommendation (ECF 18) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 3. Boddie’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice by separate Judgment filed contemporaneously with this Order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a); see also Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 12; 4. 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. § 1153(c)(2), since he has not demonstrated that “reasonable jurists” would find the Court’s “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; 5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gerald J. Pappert GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.