HILL v. LANE
This text of HILL v. LANE (HILL v. LANE) 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
SHAWN R. HILL
Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-1076 v.
TAMMY FERGUSON, et al. Respondents.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of September 2019, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and all related filings, and upon review of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Elizabeth T. Hey, and for the reasons stated in the separate Order approving and adopting the R&R, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without an evidentiary hearing; 2. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability1; and 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. It is so ORDERED. BY THE COURT:
/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe ____________________ CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
1 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.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation omitted).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
HILL v. LANE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-lane-paed-2019.