ROBERTS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GEORGE ROBERTS, JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:25-271 ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, ) Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto ) Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM ORDER AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2026, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto on December 17, 2025, (Docket No. 7), recommending that Petitioner George Roberts’ § 2254 Petition (Docket No. 1) be dismissed as the Court previously denied a § 2254 Petition in Roberts v. Hollibaugh, Civ. A. No. 3:23-cv-265-NBF-KAP (W.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2025), cert. of appealability denied sub nom., Roberts v. Attorney General of Pennsylvania, App. No. 25-1275 (3d Cir. May 29, 2025), such that the instant petition constitutes a second or successive petition challenging the same convictions for attempted homicide, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit robbery, and lesser offenses and his sentence of 10-20 years in Commonwealth v. Roberts, CP-26-CR-1505-2007 (C.P. Fayette) and the petition was filed without being authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, as is required by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), and the Magistrate Judge further recommending that no certificate of appealability should issue, and that objections be filed within 14 days such that objections from non-ECF users like Petitioner were due by January 5, 2026, (Docket No. 7), and no objections having been filed by the date of this Order, and upon independent review of the record and de novo consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of December 17, 2025, (Docket No. 7), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [7] is ADOPTED as the Opinion of this Court; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED as it is an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 habeas petition, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a Constitutional right or shown that jurists of reason would disagree that the Petition should be dismissed as it was not authorized by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the matter, see e.g., Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 139-40 (3d Cir. 2002); and, An appropriate Judgment follows. s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer Senior U.S. District Judge cc/ecf: Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto All counsel of record. cc: George Roberts, Jr. HT-1247 S.C.I. Somerset 1600 Walters Mill Road Somerset, PA 15510 (via first class mail)