Langella v. Holt

Filing 20

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge Gary A. Fenner on 8/11/09. (Mitchell, Lisa)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION GENNARO LANGELLA, Petitioner, vs. MARTY C. ANDERSON, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 09-3165-CV-S-GAF ORDER Now pending before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in which he challenges actions of the Parole Commissioner. Petitioner alleges that the Parole Commission violated his constitutional right to due process; that it violated its regulations by improperly instructing the hearing examiner at the 2005 hearing that she could not reopen his case and grant a parole effective date; that the Commission forfeited its discretion to the Assistant United States Attorney; that it erroneously relied on police reports, which he asserts do not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis for its decision; and that it violated the Privacy Act and the Freedom of Information Act. On July 9, 2009, Chief United States Magistrate Judge James C. England issued his Report and Recommendation (Doc. #15). On July 29, 2009, Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. #19) was filed. Upon careful and independent review of the pending petition, Petitioner's objections to the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, as well as the applicable law, this Court hereby adopts and incorporates as its own Opinion and Order the Report and Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge James C. England. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) is DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. s/ Gary A. Fenner Gary A. Fenner, Judge United States District Court DATED: August 11, 2009 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?