GLD
- 119 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 1 2

- 1060

___________ WILLIAM D. TURNER, Appellant

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civ. No. 2

- 11

- cv - 05208 ) District Judge: Honorable Edmund V. Ludwig

____________________________________ Submitted fo r Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 February 16, 2012 Before : FUENTES, GREENAWAY, JR. and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed : March 9, 2012 )

_________ OPINION

_________
PER CURIAM William D. Turner, a Pennsy lvania prisoner proceeding pro se, is curr ently serving a life sentence for his 1981 conviction for first

- degree murder. In August 1999, he filed a2 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the E astern Dist rict of Pe nnsylvania alleging ineffective assistance of counsel at his murder trial

. 1 T he petition was referred to a Magistrate Judge who recommend ed tha t the District Court dismiss it as time

- barred. T he District Court adopted the Magistrat e Judge’s Report and Recommendation , and dismissed Turner’s petition

. 2
I n August 2011, Turn er filed in the District Court a pleading styled as a “petition for mandamus” seeking de novo review of his previously dismissed habeas petition. Turner claimed that the District Court never consider ed the objections that he filed to the Magistrate Ju dge’s Report and Recommendation; according to Turner , the court overlooked his argument that his § 2254 p etition was in fact timely because it related back to his 1986 petition

. The District Court found that Turner had failed to demonstrate that this argument was overlooked, and denied the petition. Turner subsequently sought reconsideration , but the Distri ct Court denied his request . Turner now appeals from the District Court’s order. Turner v. Dragovich , No. 99

- 3975 (E.D. Pa. Jul y 25, 2000).

1 This was Turner’s second habeas petition. In 1986, he filed a petition complaining of undue delay in his Pennsylvania post

- conviction proceedings. The District Court denied the petition. Turner v. Zimmerman , No. 86

- 6818 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 1987).

2 This Court subsequently affirmed the District Cour t’s dismissal of the petition. Turner v. Dragovich , No. 00

- 2348 (3d Cir. Apr. 8, 2002). Since then, Turner has filed several unsuccessful motions under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to reopen his § 2254 proceedings. See, e.g.
 ̧ Turner v. Kerestes , E.D. Pa. Civ. N o. 10

- 1235; Turner v. Kerestes , E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10

- 3163; Turner v. Kerestes , E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10

- 3577; Turner v. Kerestes , E.D. Pa. Civ. No. 10

- 4388.3 W e have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. As the District Court explained, the docket entries in Tur ner’s habeas proceeding reflect that he filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on June 20, 2000. Turner has failed to demonstrate that the D istrict Court neglected to consider those objections before re aching its decision to deny his petition for habeas corpus

. Therefor e, the District Court properly denied the petition. The District Court also properly denied Turner’s motion for reconsideration. In the motion, Turner merely reiterated his allegations and requests for relief, and did not present any argument or evidenc e that would provide a basis for re co nsideration

. See Max’s Seafood Café by Lou

- Ann, Inc. v. Quinte ros , 176 F.3d 669, 677 (3d Cir. 1999) (providing that a motion for reconsideration filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) may be granted on one of the following groun ds: “(1) an intervening change in the controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence that was not available . . . ; or (3) the need to correct a clear error of law or fact o r to prevent manifest injustice ” ). Accordingly, b ecause this appeal doe s not present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s orders. See Third Cir. L.A.R. 27.4. Turner’s motion for summary action is denied.