CAREY v. PETERS

W.D. Pennsylvania

CAREY v. PETERS

DecidedJanuary 16, 2025

Docket3:24-cv-00099

StatusUnknown

This text of CAREY v. PETERS (CAREY v. PETERS) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

CAREY v. PETERS, (W.D. Pa. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THOMAS CAREY, JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:24-99 ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer COLETTE S. PETERS, DIRECTOR, BOP, ) Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto MICHAEL UNDERWOOD, WARDEN, ) F.C.I. LORETTO, ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of January, 2025, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto on May 14, 2024, (Docket No. 5), recommending that the § 2241 habeas petition filed by Petitioner Thomas Carey, Jr. against BOP Director Colette S. Peters and Warden Michael Underwood of FCI Loretto be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directing that any objections were due within 14 days, Petitioner’s Objections to Report and Recommendation which was timely filed on May 22, 2024, (Docket No. 6), as well as his Brief in Support of 2241 Petition which was filed months later on October 6, 2024, (Docket No. 7), and this matter having been recently reassigned to the undersigned for prompt disposition of the matter, (Docket No. 8), and upon independent review of the record and de novo consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections (Docket Nos. 6 & 7) are OVERRULED, as his attempt to challenge his conviction utilizing a § 2241 petition is foreclosed by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023); and subsequent precedent by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, see e.g., In re Edwards, 98 F. 4th 425, 436 (3d Cir. 2024); IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Docket No. 4) is DISMISSED, for lack of jurisdiction; and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED. s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer Senior U.S. District Judge

cc/ecf: Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto

cc: Thomas J. Carey, Jr. BOP # 76081-053 F.C.I. Loretto P.O. Box 1000 Cresson, PA 16630 (via first class mail)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THOMAS CAREY, JR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:24-99 ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer COLETTE S. PETERS, DIRECTOR, BOP, ) Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto MICHAEL UNDERWOOD, WARDEN, ) F.C.I. LORETTO, ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of January, 2025, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto on May 14, 2024, (Docket No. 5), recommending that the § 2241 habeas petition filed by Petitioner Thomas Carey, Jr. against BOP Director Colette S. Peters and Warden Michael Underwood of FCI Loretto be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directing that any objections were due within 14 days, Petitioner’s Objections to Report and Recommendation which was timely filed on May 22, 2024, (Docket No. 6), as well as his Brief in Support of 2241 Petition which was filed months later on October 6, 2024, (Docket No. 7), and this matter having been recently reassigned to the undersigned for prompt disposition of the matter, (Docket No. 8), and upon independent review of the record and de novo consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections (Docket Nos. 6 & 7) are OVERRULED, as his attempt to challenge his conviction utilizing a § 2241 petition is foreclosed by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e), the Supreme Court’s decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 478 (2023); and subsequent precedent by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, see e.g., In re Edwards, 98 F. 4th 425, 436 (3d Cir. 2024); IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Docket No. 4) is DISMISSED, for lack of jurisdiction; and,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED. s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer Senior U.S. District Judge

cc/ecf: Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto

cc: Thomas J. Carey, Jr. BOP # 76081-053 F.C.I. Loretto P.O. Box 1000 Cresson, PA 16630 (via first class mail)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

CAREY v. PETERS, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carey-v-peters-pawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack