2011 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

11-3-2011

David Bookman v. USDC EDPA

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3161

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2011

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2011 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"David Bookman v. USDC EDPA" (2011). 2011 Decisions. Paper 266.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_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DLD-011 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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 PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D.C. Civil No. 2-11-cv-03920)

District Judge: Honorable Petrese B. Tucker

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to 

Third 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 failed

to make a de novo determination after Bookman filed objections to a Report and 
2

Recommendation in his habeas corpus proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. According to 

Bookman, the District Court denied 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 

denied 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 considered Bookman’s objections and approved

of the Report and Recommendation after “careful and independent consideration of the 

petition.” Further, the District Court denied Bookman’s motion for reconsideration in the 

habeas case, and also denied his “Rule 60(b)” motion in which he raised the same 

argument about a purported lack of de novo review. Bookman timely filed this appeal.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and will affirm. There is no record 

support for Bookman’s contention that the District Court failed to conduct a proper 

review after he filed objections to the Report and Recommendation in his habeas case. 

Furthermore, this Court denied a certificate of appealability in the habeas case, explaining 

that Bookman did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right 

on any of his claims. See C.A. No. 10-1507 (order entered May 26, 2010). In short, 

Bookman’s claim that he was deprived of due process or equal protection in the habeas 

case is without merit, and his purported “petition for mandamus,” therefore, was properly 

dismissed. We will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. LAR 

27.4. Bookman’s motion for summary action is denied.