From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kimmel v. Tennis

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Nov 9, 2007
Civil Action No. 07 - 338 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 07 — 338.

November 9, 2007


ORDER


On March 16, 2007, the above captioned case was initiated by the filing of a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. no. 1) and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 17), filed on October 15, 2007, recommended that Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied. Petitioner was served with the Report and Recommendation and was advised he was allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. No objections have been filed. After review of the pleadings and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered: AND NOW, this 9th day of November, 2007;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (doc. no. 17) of Magistrate Judge Lenihan, dated October 15, 2007, 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, Petitioner has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.


Summaries of

Kimmel v. Tennis

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Nov 9, 2007
Civil Action No. 07 - 338 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2007)
Case details for

Kimmel v. Tennis

Case Details

Full title:SHAUN EDWARD KIMMEL, Petitioner, v. FRANKLIN J. TENNIS; DISTRICT ATTORNEY…

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 9, 2007

Citations

Civil Action No. 07 - 338 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 9, 2007)

Citing Cases

Hart v. County of Delaware Off. of Probation Parole

In a habeas petition, there is a general requirement that the petitioner be in custody. U.S. v. Jackson, 523…