ELLIOTT v. FOLINO
This text of ELLIOTT v. FOLINO (ELLIOTT v. FOLINO) 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.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NASIR ELLIOTT : : CIVIL ACTION v. : : NO. 13-1944 MICHAEL ZAKEN, et. al. :
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2024, upon careful and independent consideration of Petitioner Nasir Elliott's Objections to the November 21, 2023 Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Hey, and following careful review of Judge Hey's Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED: 1. Petitioner's Objections are OVERRULED and the Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum. 2. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.1 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez _____________________ Juan R. Sánchez, J.
1 Elliott has not shown denial of a federal constitutional right, nor established that reasonable jurists would disagree with this Court's procedural disposition of his claims. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). Although he also objects to Judge Hey’s recommendation that no certificate of appealability should be issued, his argument does not make the requisite showing and the Court agrees there is no basis to issue a Certificate of Appealability.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
ELLIOTT v. FOLINO, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-folino-paed-2024.