PARKS v. CAPOZZA

E.D. Pennsylvania

PARKS v. CAPOZZA

DecidedAugust 11, 2022

Docket2:20-cv-04532

StatusUnknown

This text of PARKS v. CAPOZZA (PARKS 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

PARKS v. CAPOZZA, (E.D. Pa. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA EVANS PARKS, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 20-4532 SUPERINTENDENT MARK CAPOZZA, et al., Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 11th day of August 2022, upon consideration of Petitioner Evans Parks’s pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1), Respondents’ Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 13), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey (Doc. No. 22), Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 28), and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 22) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED. 3. A Certificate of Appealability SHALL NOT issue because, based on the analysis contained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, as approved and adopted by this Court, a reasonable jurist could not conclude that the Court is incorrect in denying and dismissing the Habeas Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joel H. Slomsky______ JOEL H. SLOMSKY, 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 EVANS PARKS, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 20-4532 SUPERINTENDENT MARK CAPOZZA, et al., Defendants. ORDER AND NOW, this 11th day of August 2022, upon consideration of Petitioner Evans Parks’s pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1), Respondents’ Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 13), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey (Doc. No. 22), Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 28), and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 22) is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED. 3. A Certificate of Appealability SHALL NOT issue because, based on the analysis contained in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, as approved and adopted by this Court, a reasonable jurist could not conclude that the Court is incorrect in denying and dismissing the Habeas Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000).

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joel H. Slomsky______ JOEL H. SLOMSKY, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

PARKS v. CAPOZZA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parks-v-capozza-paed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack