From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mickens v. Harlow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 30, 2012
Case No.2:12-ev-1039 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2012)

Opinion

Case No.2:12-ev-1039

08-30-2012

ROBERT MICKENS, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL W. HARLOW; SUPERINTENDENT; and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents.


District Judge Mark R. Hornak


MEMORANDUM ORDER

On July 25, 2012, the above captioned case was initiated by the filing of a Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis accompanied by a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) and was referred to a united states magistrate judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges.

The magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation on July 31, 2012 (ECF No. 4) recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed pre-service as a successive 2254 petition for which the Petitioner has not demonstrated the necessary certification from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). On August 6, 2012, Petitioner filed a Supplement, which the Court will construe as objections to the Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's objections do not undermine the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

After de novo review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, and the Objections thereto, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 30th day day of August, 2012:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED as a successive 2254 petition for which the Petitioner has not demonstrated the necessary certification from the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

By the Court:

_________________

Mark R. Hornak

United States District Judge
Robert Mickens
CT-7015
SCI Albion
10745 Route 18
Albion, PA 16475-0002


Summaries of

Mickens v. Harlow

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 30, 2012
Case No.2:12-ev-1039 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2012)
Case details for

Mickens v. Harlow

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT MICKENS, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL W. HARLOW; SUPERINTENDENT; and THE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Aug 30, 2012

Citations

Case No.2:12-ev-1039 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 30, 2012)