WOOD v. WENEROWICZ et al
ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. 2. RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO TRANSFER (DOCKET NO. 4) IS GRANTED AND THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTER N DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. 3. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. 4. THE CLERK OF THE COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, ETC. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JEFFREY L. SCHMEHL ON 9/29/2015. 9/30/2015 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(lbs, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL WERNEROWICZ, et al,
AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2015, upon careful and independent
consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, and after review of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley and Petitioner’s
“Motion in Opposition to Transfer Proceedings” (Docket No. 6), which I construe as
objections to the Report and Recommendation, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. Respondents’ Motion to Transfer (Docket No. 4) is GRANTED and
the petition for writ of habeas corpus is TRANSFERRED to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
4. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case closed for statistical
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Schmehl
Jeffrey L. Schmehl, J.
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?