Dupree v. Wetzel

E.D. Pennsylvania

Dupree v. Wetzel

DecidedDecember 20, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-01944

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Dupree v. Wetzel, (E.D. Pa. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

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

NICHOLAS DUPREE Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-1944 JOHN E. WETZEL, et al. Defendants.

ORDER AND NOW, this 20th day of December 2021, upon consideration of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 9], the Report and Recommendation relating thereto [Doc. No. 38], and Petitioner’s Letter of June 24, 2021 [Doc. No. 37], and for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 38] is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; 2. The Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 9] is DISMISSED, without an evidentiary hearing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3. Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 39] is DISMISSED as moot. 4. A certificate of appealability will not issue as there is no basis for concluding that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”1

1 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation and quotation omitted). 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. It is so ORDERED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Cynthia M. Rufe _____________________ CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

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

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

NICHOLAS DUPREE Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-1944 JOHN E. WETZEL, et al. Defendants.

ORDER AND NOW, this 20th day of December 2021, upon consideration of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 9], the Report and Recommendation relating thereto [Doc. No. 38], and Petitioner’s Letter of June 24, 2021 [Doc. No. 37], and for the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 38] is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; 2. The Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. No. 9] is DISMISSED, without an evidentiary hearing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 3. Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time [Doc. No. 39] is DISMISSED as moot. 4. A certificate of appealability will not issue as there is no basis for concluding that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”1

1 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal citation and quotation omitted). 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. It is so ORDERED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Cynthia M. Rufe _____________________ CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dupree v. Wetzel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dupree-v-wetzel-paed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack