Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. Sniezek

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


July 7, 2010

GILBERT ROBINSON, PETITIONER
v.
T.R. SNIEZEK, RESPONDENT

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

ORDER

AND NOW, this 7th day of July, 2010, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 10) of the magistrate judge, recommending that the petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus, filed by petitioner Gilbert Robinson ("Robinson") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, be dismissed because Robinson's petition was improperly filed, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that Robinson has previously filed and fully litigated before this court a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to § 2255, (see Doc. 10 at 3), that Robinson's instant attempt to file a § 2241 petition is procedurally improper, (see Doc. 10 at 4), that his petition does not satisfy the safety-valve language of § 2255(e), (see Doc. 10 at 9); see also Manna v. Schultz, 591 F.3d 664, 665 (3d Cir. 2010) (stating that the remedy under § 2255 is not inadequate or ineffective merely because relief was denied, nor because a petitioner fails to meet the requirements for a second or successive § 2255 motion); United States ex rel. Leguillo v. Davis, 212 F.2d 681, 684 (3d Cir. 1954) (explaining that the remedy is inadequate or ineffective "only if it can be shown that some limitation of scope or procedure would prevent a Section 2255 proceeding from affording the prisoner a full hearing and adjudication of his claim of wrongful detention"), and it further appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's recommendation,*fn1 and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,*fn2 see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report and recommendation (Doc. 10) of the magistrate judge is ADOPTED.

2. The petition (Doc. 1) for habeas corpus is DISMISSED.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.