GERSTEMEIER v. SUPERIOR et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 3) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; GERSTEMEIER'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. NO. 1) IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO MARK THIS CASE CLOSED.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JUAN R. SANCHEZ ON 5/22/17. 5/23/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER. (pr, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH
SUPERIOR, et al.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of May, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration of
Petitioner Jonathan Gerstemeier’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, and upon de novo review of the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, to which no objections have been filed,1 it is
The Report and Recommendation (Document 3) is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
Gerstemeier’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Document 1) is DISMISSED
A certificate of appealability shall not issue, as Gerstemeier has failed to show
that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the procedural and substantive
rulings adopted herein are correct; and
The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Juan R. Sánchez
Juan R. Sánchez, J.
The Report and Recommendation was sent to all parties of record on May 2, 2017, together
with a Notice from the Clerk of Court advising the parties of their obligation to file any
objections within 14 days after service of the Notice. See Local R. Civ. P. 72.1 IV(b) (“Any
party may object to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings, recommendations or report under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and subsections 1(c) and (d) of this Rule within fourteen (14) days after
being served with a copy thereof.”). As of today’s date, no objections have been filed.
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?