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

QASHIME WAGNER, : CIVIL ACTION Petitioner-pro se, : v. : NO. 25-902 HOWARD SISSEM, et al., : Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 10th day of November 2025, upon consideration of pro se Petitioner Qashime Wagner’s (“Petitioner”) petition for writ of habeas corpus, (“Petition”) filed pursuant to

, (ECF 2), Petitioner’s memorandum, (ECF 3), and exhibits, (ECF 4), Respondents’ response in opposition, (ECF 16), the Report and Recommendation, issued by the Honorable Scott W. Reid, United States Magistrate Judge, which recommended that the Petition be denied, (ECF 19), Petitioner’s motion to file objections, (ECF 21), and after conducting a de novo review of the objections as construed, it is hereby ORDERED, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. The objections to the Report and Recommendation are without merit and OVERRULED; 3. The Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (ECF 2), is DISMISSED; and 4. No probable cause exists to issue a certificate of appealability.1

The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED. BY THE COURT:

/s/ Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro NITZA I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO Judge, United States District Court

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

(c)(2). When a district court rejects a constitutional claim on the merits, the petitioner must “demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Lambert v. Blackwell,

, 230 (3d Cir. 2004). When a district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds, the prisoner must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack,

. Because this Court concludes Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s assessment “debatable,” there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability here.