From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Perry v. Diguglielmo

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 28, 2008
Civil Action No. 06-1560 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2008)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 06-1560.

February 28, 2008


ORDER


AND NOW, this 28 day of February, 2008, after the Petitioner, Anthony Williams, filed an action in the above-captioned case, and after a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge giving the parties until February 19, 2008, to file written objections thereto, and no objections having been filed, and upon independent review of the record, and upon consideration of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, which is adopted as the opinion of this Court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if the parties desire to appeal from this Order they must do so within thirty (30) days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3.


Summaries of

Perry v. Diguglielmo

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Feb 28, 2008
Civil Action No. 06-1560 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2008)
Case details for

Perry v. Diguglielmo

Case Details

Full title:JAMAR B. PERRY, Petitioner v. DAVID DIGUGLIELMO; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Feb 28, 2008

Citations

Civil Action No. 06-1560 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2008)

Citing Cases

Smith v. Office of Dist. Attorney of Allegheny Cnty.

Nor has Smith argued any other reason to excuse the procedural default, as is his burden. Perry v. …

Moore v. Diguglielmo

Nor has Petitioner argued any other reason to excuse the procedural default, as is his burden. Perry v.…