From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Lamas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 15, 2012
Civil Action No. 11 - 862 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11 - 862

02-15-2012

JEFFREY WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. MARIROSA LAMAS, et al, Respondents.


District Judge Terrence F. McVerry

Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan


MEMORANDUM ORDER

Petitioner, Jeffrey Williams, initiated this action by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (ECF Nos. 1, 5), and this case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rules 72.C and 72.D.

Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) the habeas petition asserting that the instant petition is a second or successive petition which this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain. Petitioner filed a response to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13.)

On January 25, 2012, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) recommending that Respondents' motion be granted, the habeas petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and a certificate of appealability be denied. Petitioner was served with the Report and Recommendation at his listed address and advised that he had until February 13, 2012, to file written objections. Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation on February 6, 2012. (ECF No. 18.) 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 15th day of February, 2012,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondents' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED and Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) dated January 25, 2012, is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the 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.

By the Court:

Terrence F. McVerry

United States District Judge
cc: Jeffrey Williams

GU3700

PO Box A

Bellefonte, PA 16823

Counsel of Record


Summaries of

Williams v. Lamas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 15, 2012
Civil Action No. 11 - 862 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2012)
Case details for

Williams v. Lamas

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. MARIROSA LAMAS, et al, Respondents.

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

Date published: Feb 15, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11 - 862 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2012)