HAYNES v. CAPOZZA

E.D. Pennsylvania

HAYNES v. CAPOZZA

DecidedNovember 9, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-05206

StatusUnknown

This text of HAYNES v. CAPOZZA (HAYNES v. CAPOZZA) 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

HAYNES v. CAPOZZA, (E.D. Pa. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROYSCE HAYNES : CIVIL ACTION : v. : No. 19-5206 : SUPERINTENDENT CAPOZZA, et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of November, 2020, upon careful consideration of pro se Petitioner Roysce Haynes’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, and after de novo review of the July 15, 2020, Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, and Haynes’s objections thereto, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED: 1. Haynes’s Objections (Document 14) are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation (Document 12) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 3. Haynes’s Petition (Document 1) is DENIED with prejudice and DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing; 4. Judgment is entered in favor of Respondents; and 5. A certificate of appealability shall not issue because Haynes has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, i.e., that reasonable jurists would disagree with this Court’s procedural or substantive rulings on his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). It is further ORDERED Haynes’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Document 11) and “Motion of Objections, Exhibits” (Document 14) are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case CLOSED. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.

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

ROYSCE HAYNES : CIVIL ACTION : v. : No. 19-5206 : SUPERINTENDENT CAPOZZA, et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of November, 2020, upon careful consideration of pro se Petitioner Roysce Haynes’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody, and after de novo review of the July 15, 2020, Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, and Haynes’s objections thereto, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED: 1. Haynes’s Objections (Document 14) are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation (Document 12) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 3. Haynes’s Petition (Document 1) is DENIED with prejudice and DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing; 4. Judgment is entered in favor of Respondents; and 5. A certificate of appealability shall not issue because Haynes has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, i.e., that reasonable jurists would disagree with this Court’s procedural or substantive rulings on his claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). It is further ORDERED Haynes’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Document 11) and “Motion of Objections, Exhibits” (Document 14) are DENIED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case CLOSED. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

HAYNES v. CAPOZZA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-capozza-paed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack