KARNGBAYE v. HARRY
This text of KARNGBAYE v. HARRY (KARNGBAYE v. HARRY) 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 DECEE KARNGBAYE, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 21-5667 LAUREL HARRY, et al., Respondents. ORDER AND NOW, this 15th day of March 2022, upon careful and independent consideration of the pleadings and available state court records, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge and Petitioner’s objections thereto, (ECF No. 17), it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The objections are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 3. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED;
4. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue, in that the Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the procedural aspects of this decision. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and 5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes. BY THE COURT: /s/ Gerald J. Pappert GERALD J. PAPPERT, J.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
KARNGBAYE v. HARRY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karngbaye-v-harry-paed-2024.