ROGERS v. GILMORE

• Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: August 10, 2021
• Docket: 2:19-cv-05663
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RONALD ROGERS, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION v. NO. 19-5663 SUPERINTENDENT ROBERT GILMORE, et al., Respondents. ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of August 2021, upon consideration of Petitioner’s pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1), Respondents’ Response in Opposition (Doc. No. 8), the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells (Doc. No. 16), Respondents’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19), and in accordance with the Opinion of the Court issued this day, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Respondents’ Objection (Doc. No. 19) to the Report and Recommendation on Claim One in the Petition is SUSTAINED. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16) is NOT adopted for Claim One. 2. Respondents’ Objection (Doc. No. 19) to the Report and Recommendation on Claim Two in the Petition is SUSTAINED. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16) is NOT

adopted for Petitioner’s procedural exhaustion on Claim Two. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the merits of Claim Two. 3. Petitioner’s pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED. 4. A Certificate of Appealability SHALL issue because reasonable jurists could find “the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong” on Claims One

and Two. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 5. The Clerk of Court shall close this case for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

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