JONES v. WENEROWICZ et al

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH T. HEY. THE PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED; THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; THE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMEN T OF COUNSEL (DOC. NO. 29) IS DENIED; THE PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE IS DENIED AS MOOT; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; AND THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS MATTER AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 6/24/16. 6/24/16 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED. (ky, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JAMES JONES,
Petitioner,
v.
M. WENEROWICZ, SUPERINTEND
STATE PRISON – GRATERFORD,
and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-2728

ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of June, 2016, after considering the petition for a writ of
habeas corpus filed by the petitioner (Doc. No. 1), the response to the petition filed by the
government (Doc. No. 25), the reply filed by the petitioner (Doc. No. 28), the amended response
to the petition filed by the government (Doc. No. 32), and the reply to the amended response
filed by the petitioner (Doc. No. 38); and after considering the state-court record; and after
considering the report and recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T.
Hey (Doc. No. 34); and after considering the objections to the report and recommendation filed
by the petitioner (Doc. No. 39); accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

The report and recommendation (Doc. No. 34) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2.

The petitioner’s objections (Doc. No. 39) are OVERRULED; 1

3.

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
4.
DENIED;

The petitioner’s motion for the appointment of counsel (Doc. No. 29) is

5.

The petitioner’s motion for a rule to show cause (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED AS

MOOT;
6.

A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue; and

7.

The clerk of court is DIRECTED to mark this matter as CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

1

The court has reviewed both the petitioner’s objections to the report and recommendation and his reply to the
government’s amended response. Unfortunately, and despite being given an opportunity to do so, the petitioner
does not seriously grapple with the idea that his current petition is an unauthorized second or successive petition. To
the extent that he levels merits objections, they are irrelevant given this court’s lack of jurisdiction. And to the
extent that his objections attack the impartiality of Magistrate Judge Hey, they are without merit.

2