MARCHESANO v. GARMIN

E.D. Pennsylvania

MARCHESANO v. GARMIN

DecidedAugust 30, 2022

Docket2:19-cv-03318

StatusUnknown

This text of MARCHESANO v. GARMIN (MARCHESANO v. GARMIN) 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

MARCHESANO v. GARMIN, (E.D. Pa. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

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

JOSEPH MARCHESANO, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-3318 MARK GARMIN, et al., Respondents.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of August 2022, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for Habeas Corpus and the related filings; and upon review of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski and the objections thereto; and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The objections are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice and without an evidentiary hearing; 4. A certificate of appealability will not issue as 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;”1 and

1 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation and quotation omitted). 5. 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.

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

JOSEPH MARCHESANO, Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-3318 MARK GARMIN, et al., Respondents.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30th day of August 2022, upon careful and independent consideration of the Petition for Habeas Corpus and the related filings; and upon review of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski and the objections thereto; and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The objections are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice and without an evidentiary hearing; 4. A certificate of appealability will not issue as 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;”1 and

1 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation and quotation omitted). 5. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

MARCHESANO v. GARMIN, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marchesano-v-garmin-paed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack