STANSBURY v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA

E.D. Pennsylvania

STANSBURY v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA

DecidedApril 10, 2020

Docket2:18-cv-01066

StatusUnknown

This text of STANSBURY v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA (STANSBURY v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA) 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

STANSBURY v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, (E.D. Pa. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

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

KAREEM STANSBURY : CIVIL ACTION : : No. 18-1066 v. : : DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF : PHILADELPHIA, et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2020, upon careful consideration of pro se Petitioner Kareem Stansbury’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, independent review of the September 20, 2019, Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret and Stansbury’s objections, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED: 1. Stansbury’s Objections (Document 36) are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation (Document 33) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as stated in the accompanying Memorandum; 3. Stansbury’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 1) is DENIED with prejudice and DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing; 4. Judgment is entered in favor of Respondents; and 5. A certificate of appealability shall not issue, as Stansbury has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, i.e., reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the procedural or substantive aspects of this ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case CLOSED. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez Juan R. Sánchez, C.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

KAREEM STANSBURY : CIVIL ACTION : : No. 18-1066 v. : : DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF : PHILADELPHIA, et al. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2020, upon careful consideration of pro se Petitioner Kareem Stansbury’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus, independent review of the September 20, 2019, Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret and Stansbury’s objections, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, it is ORDERED: 1. Stansbury’s Objections (Document 36) are OVERRULED; 2. The Report and Recommendation (Document 33) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as stated in the accompanying Memorandum; 3. Stansbury’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Document 1) is DENIED with prejudice and DISMISSED without an evidentiary hearing; 4. Judgment is entered in favor of Respondents; and 5. A certificate of appealability shall not issue, as Stansbury has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, i.e., reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the procedural or substantive aspects of this ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483–84 (2000). The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mark this case CLOSED. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Juan R. Sánchez Juan R. Sánchez, C.J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

STANSBURY v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stansbury-v-the-district-attorney-of-the-county-of-philadelphia-paed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack