GLD-119 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 12-1060

___________

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 for 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 Pennsylvania prisoner proceeding pro se, is currently serving 

a life sentence for his 1981 conviction for first-degree murder. In August 1999, he filed a 
2

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging ineffective assistance of 

counsel at his murder trial.

1

 The petition was referred to a Magistrate Judge who 

recommended that the District Court dismiss it as time-barred. The District Court 

adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, and dismissed Turner’s 

petition.

2

In August 2011, Turner 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 considered the objections that he filed to the 

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation; according to Turner, the court 

overlooked his argument that his § 2254 petition 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 District Court denied his request. Turner now appeals from the 

District Court’s order. 

 Turner v. Dragovich, No. 99-3975 (E.D. Pa. July 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 Court’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. No. 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

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. As the District 

Court explained, the docket entries in Turner’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 District Court neglected to consider those 

objections before reaching its decision to deny his petition for habeas corpus. Therefore, 

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 evidence that would provide a basis for reconsideration. See

Max’s Seafood Café by Lou-Ann, Inc. v. Quinteros, 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 grounds: “(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 or to prevent manifest injustice”). 

Accordingly, because this appeal does 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.