WALKER v. KERESTES, No. 2:2010cv02009 - Document 19 (E.D. Pa. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS NOT APPROVED AND THE CASE IS RECOMMITTED TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR RECONSIDERATION CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF THIS COURT DATED 3/30/11. PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY (DOC. NO. 11) IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOEL H. SLOMSKY ON 3/30/11. 3/30/11 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CRAIG B. WALKER, CIVIL ACTION Petitioner, NO. 10-2009 v. JOHN KERESTES, Respondent. ORDER AND NOW, this 30th day of March 2011, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No.1), Respondent's Response to Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus (Doc. No. 14), Magistrate Judge Rapoport's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 15), Petitioners Objections to Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation (Doc. No. 16), and Respondent's Memorandum of Law in Response to Objections (Doc. No. 17), it is ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is not approved and the case is RECOMMITtED to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(I)(C) for reconsideration consistent with the Opinion ofthis Court dated March 30, 2011. 2. Petitioner's Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 11) is DENIED as moot. BY THE COURT: ~~ SLOMSKi ?jOEL H.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
