From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodall v. Walsh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nov 19, 2013
2:11cv607 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2013)

Opinion

2:11cv607

11-19-2013

ERNEST WOODALL, Petitioner, v. JEROME W. WALSH, Superintendent AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents.


Electronic Filing


Judge David Stewart Cercone

Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan


MEMORANDUM ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Chief Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on August 1, 2013. ECF No. 20. The magistrate judge recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and that a certificate of appealability also be denied. Id. The parties were served with the Report and Recommendation and informed that they had until August 19, 2013, to file written objections. Id. After moving for multiple extensions of time to file said objections and for the Court to appoint him counsel, Petitioner finally filed what the Court construed to be objections, but what he actually captioned as a "Motion to Compel Answering of Fundamental Questions." See ECF Nos. 21-31. After the objection deadline was extended until October 15, 2013, Petitioner again filed several motions, including another request for additional time and another "Motion to Compel Answering of Fundamental Questions," which the Court again construed as objections. See ECF Nos. 32-37 and Text Orders dated October 11, 16, & 18, 2013. After the objection deadline was extended one last time, this time until November 15, 2013, Petitioner filed more motions, which were construed as objections, and finally a Motion to Rest on the Pleadings. See ECF Nos. 38-41 and Text Orders dated October 23 and November 1 & 11, 2013.

The Court has reviewed and considered all of Petitioner's filings that were construed as objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation, and finds that they do not undermine her recommendation that the petition be denied. There are no objections that warrant further discussion over the thorough and detailed analysis of Petitioner's claims, which were addressed on their merits in the magistrate judge's Report. Therefore, 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 19th day of November, 2013,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation dated August 1, 2013, (ECF No. 20), 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.

___________________

David Stewart Cercone

United States District Judge
cc. Ernest Woodall

AP-9353

SCI Dallas

1000 Follies Road

Dallas, PA 18612

(Via First Class Mail)

Leanne K. Shipley, Esquire

(Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail)


Summaries of

Woodall v. Walsh

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Nov 19, 2013
2:11cv607 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2013)
Case details for

Woodall v. Walsh

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST WOODALL, Petitioner, v. JEROME W. WALSH, Superintendent AND THE…

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

Date published: Nov 19, 2013

Citations

2:11cv607 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 19, 2013)

Citing Cases

In re Woodall

He also asks us to appoint counsel. Specifically, Woodall alleges that he has been unable to file documents…