The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
RAMSEY RANDALL, CIVIL ACTION
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL ZAKEN, et al., NO. 23-1389
Respondents.
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2024, upon thoughtful and independent consideration
of Petitioner Ramsey Randall’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(ECF No. 11) (the “Petition”), the government’s response in opposition to the Petition (ECF No.
29), the Petitioner’s request for emergency injunctive relief (ECF No. 46), and after de novo review
of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 45),
and the Petitioner’s objection thereto (ECF No. 47), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 47) are
OVERRULED;
2. Judge Hey’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 45) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
3. The Petition (ECF No. 11) is DISMISSED without prejudice;
4. Petitioner’s request for emergency injunctive relief (ECF No. 46) is DENIED AS MOOT;
5. There is no plausible basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability; and 1
6. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to remove this case from suspense and mark this case as
CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Hon. Kelley B. Hodge
HODGE, KELLEY B., J.
1 In determining whether a certificate of appealability (COA) should be issued, “When the
district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s
underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue (and an appeal of the district court’s order
may be taken) if the prisoner shows, at least, 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 v. Warden, 529 U.S. 473,473 (2000). In adopting the Report and Recommendation, the
Court concurs with Judge Hey’s conclusion that “[t]here has been no substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right requiring the issuance of a certificate of appealability.” (ECF No.
45 at 8.)