Rohland v. Wenerowicz et al

Filing 75

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Blewitt 68 , DENYING Rohland's petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 , DISMISSING Rohland's ineffective assist of trial cnsl claim w/out prejudice pending exhaustion of state ct remedies, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 10/31/12. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM ROHLAND,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL WENEROWICZ,
and THE PENNSYLVANIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-2420
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 2012, upon consideration of the Report
and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (Doc.
68), recommending that plaintiff’s petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied, and, following an independent review of the record and
noting that plaintiff filed objections1 to the report July 26, 2012 (Doc. 71), and the
court finding Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned,
and the court further finding plaintiff’s objections to be without merit and squarely
addressed by Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s report (Doc. 95), in light of the fact
Petitioner fails to allege that the state court proceedings resulted in a decision that
was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established
1

Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the
report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires
‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL
4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

federal law, and specifically because there is no merit whatsoever to his claim that
the written judgment of sentence for his conviction of two counts of criminal
homicide failed to include a term of imprisonment and included only restitution and
costs, as the evidence of record makes clear that the written sentence was amended
to reflect a two sentences of life imprisonment without parole within the thirty day
period for sentence modification provided under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5505 (see Doc. 66,
Ex. D), and it appearing that this court previously denied Rohland’s petition with
respect to all claims except for the “seventh ground” discussed supra, and
petitioner’s ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, which was dismissed
without prejudice pending exhaustion (See Doc. 63), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Blewitt (Doc.
68) is ADOPTED.

2.

Rholand’s petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.

3.

As noted in this court’s order of April 12, 2012 (Doc. 63), Rohland’s
ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim is DISMISSED without
prejudice pending exhaustion of state court remedies.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge