THOMAS v. WETZEL et al
| JAMIL THOMAS |
| JOHN E. WETZEL and MICHAEL WENEROWICZ |
| 2:2013cv03645 |
| June 24, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Philadelphia |
| MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN |
| Habeas Corpus: (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
34
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ECF NO. 30 , IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ECF NO. 1 , IS DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE; THIS CASE IS CLOSED; AND THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 12/31/20. 12/31/20 ENTERED AND COPIES NOT MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED.(mas, )
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PETITIONER'S LETTER REQUEST DATED 12/19/13 SEEKING TO AMEND HIS PETITION IS GRANTED, ETC. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS PLACED IN SUSPENSE UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE STATE APPELLATE PROCEEDINS. PETITIONER AND RESPONDENS SHALL NOTIFY THE COURT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE STATE PROCEEDINS SO THE HABEAS PETITION MAY PROCEED IN THIS COURT.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE MARY A. MCLAUGHLIN ON 3/13/14. 3/14/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(lvj, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
