Chris Johnson v. Kenneth Hollibaugh, The District Attorney of the County of...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________ CHRIS JOHNSON, : Petitioner, : : v. : No. 2:24-cv-05389 : KENNETH HOLLIBAUGH, THE DISTRICT : ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF : PHILADELPHIA, and THE ATTORNEY : GENERAL OF THE STATE OF : PENNSYLVANIA, : Respondents. : __________________________________________ O R D E R AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 2026, upon consideration of the Petitioner’s requests for appointment of counsel, see ECF Nos. 20, 24; after de novo review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 5, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Carlos, ECF No. 21, and Petitioner’s Objections thereto, included within his “Motion Answering to Report and Recommendations and Motion Requesting for Appointment of Counsel Based on Newly Discovered Evidence to File a Thorough Brief,” see ECF No. 24, and for the reasons set forth in the Court’s Opinion issued this date, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 21, is APPROVED and ADOPTED in part.1 2. Petitioner’s Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. 20, is DISMISSED as moot.

1 The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in part for the reasons stated in the Opinion issued this date.

3. Petitioner’s “Motion Answering to Report and Recommendations and Motion Requesting for Appointment of Counsel Based on Newly Discovered Evidence to File a Thorough Brief,” ECF No. 24, is decided as follows: a. To the extent Petitioner’s Motion, ECF No. 24, objects to the Report and Recommendation, such objections are OVERRULED.2 b. To the extent Petitioner’s Motion, ECF No. 24, requests appointment of counsel in this case, such request is DISMISSED as moot.

4. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 5, is DISMISSED.

5. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

6. This case is CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr._________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

2 When objections to a report and recommendation have been filed, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984). The “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations” contained in the report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “District Courts, however, are not required to make any separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).” Hill v. Barnacle, 655 F. App’x 142, 148 (3d Cir. 2016).