Woolsey v. Mitzel
||Desiree Mitzel and Charles Mitzel
||January 24, 2017
||US District Court for the Northern District of New York
||XX US, Outside State
||David E. Peebles
||Thomas J. McAvoy
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|May 22, 2017
JUDGMENT: that the Court Accepts and Adopts the recommendations made by Magistrate Judge Peebles in the February 27, 2017 Report, Recommendation and Order dkt. # 11 ; that the 2 petition is Denied and Dismissed; that Petitioner's motion for r econsideration of the transfer order from the Eastern District of New York (Dkt. No. 8 ) is Denied as moot. The Court also finds that the petition presents no questions of substance for appellate review, and that the Petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); see Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not issue. That Respondents' motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 20 ) is Denied a s moot; and that Petitioner's motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in Support of the Application to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. # 21 ) is Denied as moot. All pursuant to the 22 Decision and Order of the Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy dated May 22, 2017. (Copy of Judgment was served on pro se petitioner at 132 North Washington Street, Winchester, VA 22601 and pro se respondents at 295 Lucas Avenue, Kingston, NY 12401 via regular and certified mail on 05/22/2017.)(hmr)
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 New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.
Why Is My Information Online?