BODDY-JOHNSON v. GILMORE

E.D. Pennsylvania

BODDY-JOHNSON v. GILMORE

DecidedJune 18, 2024

Docket2:18-cv-00198

StatusUnknown

This text of BODDY-JOHNSON v. GILMORE (BODDY-JOHNSON v. GILMORE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BODDY-JOHNSON v. GILMORE, (E.D. Pa. 2024).

Pincite

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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BODDY-JOHNSON v. GILMORE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boddy-johnson-v-gilmore-paed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack