HOUSER v. ZAKEN

District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

HOUSER v. ZAKEN

Trial Court Opinion

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

ALAN TROY HOUSER, Petitioner, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-1936 V. Hon. William S. Stickman [V Hon. Cynthia Reed Eddy MICHAEL ZAKEN, et al, Respondents.

ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2¢6“day of July 2022, after Petitioner, Alan Troy Houser, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 5), and after a thorough Report and Recommendation was filed by Chief Magistrate Cynthia Reed Eddy recommending the denial of all Petitioner’s claims and the denial of a certificate of appealability (ECF No. 28), and having received Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 29) and conducting its independent de novo review of the entire record, the Court hereby ADOPTS Chief Magistrate Judge Eddy’s Report and Recommendation as its Opinion. It concurs with her thorough legal analysis of Petitioner’s claims, her legal conclusions, and her recommendations. It has independently reached the same conclusions. The Court hereby OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objections (ECF No. 29). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s conclusion — 1.e., that each of Petitioner’s claims is without merit — debatable or wrong.!

A certificate of appealability may issue only upon “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(2). A petitioner must “demonstrate that reasonable

AND, IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1), if Petitioner desires to appeal from this Order, he must do so within thirty (30) days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3. The Clerk is directed to mark this CASE CLOSED.

BY THE COURT: f . 2LLA © Sere WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Lambert v. Blackwell,

387 F.3d 210

, 230 | (3d Cir. 2004).

Reference

Status
Unknown