Johnson v. McGinley

Opinion

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

ARMONI MASUD JOHNSON, No. 3:19-CV-01512

Petitioner, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS MCGINLEY, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER SEPTEMBER 2, 2021 Armoni Masud Johnson, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition seeking to vacate his convictions and sentence.1 Johnson raises numerous claims in his petition, including claims of a Batson2 violation, and that his due process rights were violated.3 In June 2021, Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the petition and deny as moot Johnson’s motion for summary judgment.4 Specifically, Chief Magistrate

1 Doc. 1. 2 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 3 Docs. 1, 5. 4 Doc. 34. Judge Mehalchick recommends finding that Johnson’s claims are procedurally defaulted, and that no exceptions would permit this Court to consider the claims.5

After receiving an extension of time, Johnson filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.6 “If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination

of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”7 Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.8 Upon de novo review, the Court finds no

error in Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 34) is ADOPTED; 2. Johnson’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED; 3. Johnson’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25) is DENIED as moot;

5 Id. 6 Doc. 39. 7 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). 8 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. 4. Johnson’s motion for an extension of time to file objections (Doc. 37) is DENIED as unnecessary;

5. The Court declines to issue certificate of appealability;9 and 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge

9 See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (setting forth legal standard).