Michael Ondish, Sr. v. Melissa Hainesworth, Superintendent, S.C.I. Laurel Highlands, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: January 26, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00064
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

MICHAEL ONDISH, SR., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:25-64 ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer MELISSA HAINESWORTH, ) Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto SUPERINTENDENT, S.CI. LAUREL ) HIGHLANDS, et al., ) ) Respondents. MEMORANDUM ORDER

AND NOW, this 26th day of January, 2026, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto on August 18, 2025, (Docket No. 10), recommending that the § 2254 habeas petition filed by Petitioner Michael Ondish, Sr. against Melissa Hainesworth, Superintendent S.C.I. Laurel Highlands et al. be denied as Petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies as to the challenged denial of his parole and alleged impermissible procedures and his claims in his 2254 habeas petition were otherwise without merit and further directed that objections were due in 14 days such that objections from non-ECF users were due on August 25, 2025, the timely Objections filed by Petitioner on August 18, 2025, (Docket No. 12), the matter having been reassigned to the undersigned for prompt disposition, and upon independent review of the record and de novo consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of August 18, 2025, (Docket No. 10), which is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections [11] are OVERRULED. To that end, Petitioner’s request that the matter be remanded to the U.S. Magistrate Judge to consider his Reply/Traverse is denied as the Report and Recommendation expressly states that it was reviewed and considered. (See Docket No. 11 at 1 (“Ondish, in his petition at ECF no. 1 and in his traverse at ECF no. 9”). Setting aside Petitioner’s disputes with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation

that the Petition be denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, he has failed to show that the denial of parole was a result of a violation of his Constitutional rights as he has not established that the Parole Board relied upon impermissible factors and this Court is not permitted to second guess the Parole Board’s decisions or factual findings in reviewing a habeas petition. See e.g., Richardson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 423 F.3d 282, 385 (3d Cir. 2005); Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F3d 480 (3d Cir. 2001); Mathis v. Superintendent Huntingdon SCI, 2025 WL 2694100 (3d Cir. 2025). Hence, Petitioner’s objections are overruled;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Docket No. 1) is DENIED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a Constitutional right; and, FINALLY, IT IS 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: MICHAEL A. ONDISH, SR. JZ8491 SCI LAUREL HIGHLANDS 5706 Glades Pike P.O. Box 631 Somerset, PA 15501 (via first class mail)