BODDY-JOHNSON v. GILMORE

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ZAHIR BODDY-JOHNSON

Petitioner,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 18-198 ROBERT GILMORE, SUPERINTENDENT, SCI-GREENE, et al. Respondents. ORDER AND NOW, this 17th day of June 2024, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 1], the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin [Doc. No. 13], Petitioner’s Objections [Doc. No. 27], and all of the filings in this case, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. Petitioner’s Objections are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED without a hearing; 4. A certificate of appealability will not issue as there is no basis for concluding that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further;”1 and 5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. It is so ORDERED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Cynthia M. Rufe _____________________ CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

1 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).