LUGO v. ROZUM et al
| DANIEL LUGO |
| GERALD ROZUM, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LEHIGH and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PA |
| 5:2013cv03943 |
| July 8, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Allentown Office |
| Lehigh |
| JAMES KNOLL GARDNER |
| Habeas Corpus: (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
20
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE RUETERS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE RUETERS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED. IT IS FU RTHER ORDERED THAT THE PRO SE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF IS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR STAY AND ABEYANCE IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT BECAUSE PETITIONER DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE A SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF THE DENIAL OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, AND BECAUSE REASONABLE JURISTS COULD NOT FIND THIS RULING DENYING HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF DEBATABLE, A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS MATTER FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAMES KNOLL GARDNER ON 6/27/16. 6/28/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED PRO SE, E-MAILED.(mas, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
