2011 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

11-3-2011 

# D a v id B o okm a n v

. U S D C EDP

A

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al
D ock e t N o . 11-3161

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2011 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" D a v id Boo km a n v

. U S D C EDP

A" (2011). 2011 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 266. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2011/266

### DLD
- 011 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 11

- 3161

___________ DAVID BOOKMAN ,

Appellant

v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVAN IA

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

- 11

- cv - 0 3920 ) District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker

____________________________________ Submitt ed for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Th ird Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

October 14, 2011
Before: AMBRO, JORDAN and VANASKIE , Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : November 3, 2011 )

_________________ OPINION

_________________ PER CURIAM

. On June 14, 2011, David Bookman, a Pennsylvania state inmate, filed a pleading styled as a “petition for mandamus,” claiming that the District Court erred when it fail ed

to make a de novo determ ination after Bookman filed objections to a Report and2



### Recommendation in his habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. According to Bookman, the District Court d enied the habeas petition ( which was docketed at E.D. Pa.
Civ. No. 08

- cv - 05407) without a de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and thereby
deni ed Bookman due process and equal protection of the law.
The District Court dismissed the “petition for mandamus ” sua sponte , noting that
its order in the habeas case reflects that it cons ider ed Bookman’s objections and approv ed
of the Report and Recommendation after “careful and independent consideration of the petition

. ” Further, t he District Court denied Bookman’s motion for reconsideration in the
habeas case , and also denied his “Rule 60(b)” motion in which he rais ed the same argument about a purported lack of de novo review. Book man timely filed this appeal.
We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm

. There is no record support for Bookman’s contention that the District C ourt failed to conduct a proper
review after he filed objections to the Report and Recommendation in his habeas case
. Further more , this Court denied a certificate of appealability in the habeas case , explaining
that Bookman did not make a substantial show ing of the denial of a constitutional right

on any of his claim s
. See C.A. No. 10

- 1507 (order entered May 26, 20 10). In short, Bookman’s claim that he was deprived of due process or equal protection in the habeas case is without merit, and his p urported “ petition for mandamus , ” therefore, was properly
dismissed. W e will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. LAR
27.4. Bookman’s motion for summary action is denied.