HATTEN v. BLEDSOE, 1:CV-11-1051. (2012)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20120803701
Visitors: 2
Filed: Jul. 24, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2012
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM W. CALDWELL, District Judge. AND NOW, this 24th day of July, 2012, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 10) of the magistrate judge, filed May 15, 2012, and Plaintiff's objections (Doc.13) thereto, and upon independent review of the record, it is ordered that: 1. The magistrate judge's report is adopted. 2. The 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition (Doc. 1) is denied. 3. Petitioner's petition (Doc. 16) to expedite and for judgment as a matter of law is denied. 1 3. The Clerk of Court
Summary: ORDER WILLIAM W. CALDWELL, District Judge. AND NOW, this 24th day of July, 2012, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 10) of the magistrate judge, filed May 15, 2012, and Plaintiff's objections (Doc.13) thereto, and upon independent review of the record, it is ordered that: 1. The magistrate judge's report is adopted. 2. The 28 U.S.C. 2241 petition (Doc. 1) is denied. 3. Petitioner's petition (Doc. 16) to expedite and for judgment as a matter of law is denied. 1 3. The Clerk of Court ..
More
ORDER
WILLIAM W. CALDWELL, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 24th day of July, 2012, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 10) of the magistrate judge, filed May 15, 2012, and Plaintiff's objections (Doc.13) thereto, and upon independent review of the record, it is ordered that:
1. The magistrate judge's report is adopted.
2. The 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition (Doc. 1) is denied.
3. Petitioner's petition (Doc. 16) to expedite and for judgment as a matter of law is denied.1
3. The Clerk of Court shall close this file.2
FootNotes
1. Our denial of the petition to expedite is without prejudice to any claim Petitioner has concerning the calculation of his good-time credit as an inmate who was formerly serving a life sentence. That claim was not part of the 2241 petition.
2. In his "petition request to expedite," (Doc. 16), Petitioner makes a new due process claim concerning his staff representative in No. 2037471. We reject this claim because it was not presented in the habeas petition and because it lacks merit in any event.
Source: Leagle
