# REINERT v. SMITH

> District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · November 3, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10416046

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 3, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10416046

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNSTOWN
RANDY P. REINERT,
Petitioner, 3:19-CV-00204
VS.
BARRY R. SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT )
OF SCI HOUTZDALE; JOHN WETZEL,
SECRETARY FOR PA DEPT OF )
CORRECTIONS; LEO DUNN, )
CHAIRMAN, PA BOARD OF )
PROBATION AND PAROLE; AND JOSH )
SHAPIRO, PA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) filed by
Petitioner Randy P. Reinert. The matter was referred to Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Cynthia Reed Eddy for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act,
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges.
The magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) on August 17,
2020, recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and that no certificate
of appealability be issued. (ECF No. 16). After being granted an extension of time, Petitioner filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 20). The matter is now ripe for
disposition. For the reasons set forth below, the Report and Recommendation will be adopted and
the petition will be denied.
Where, as here, objections have been filed, the Court is required to make a de novo
determination about those portions of the R&R to which objections were made. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The district court may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition, as well as receive further evidence or return the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
The Court has reviewed the matter and concludes that the Report and Recommendation
correctly analyzes the issues and makes a sound recommendation. Petitioner’s objections do not
undermine the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Accordingly, after de novo review of the
Petition and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation and Objections
thereto, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will be denied.
Jurists of reason would not find it debatable that the petition should be denied. Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Accordingly, a Certificate of Appealability will be denied.
The denial of a certificate of appealability does not prevent Petitioner from appealing so long as
he seeks, and obtains, a certificate of appealability from the court of appeals. See Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1).

October 4 Cy 2020 \ nr \
‘ et % pm | 5 \ \
Wir Le KINO
Kim R. Gibson
United States District Judge

cc: RANDY P. REINERT
JT 0482
Veterans Unit
SCI Houtzdale
PO Box 1000
Houtzdale, Pa 16698-1000
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
Timothy P. Keating
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
(via ECF electronic notification)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHNSTOWN
RANDY P. REINERT,
Petitioner, 3:19-CV-00204
Vs.
BARRY R. SMITH, SUPERINTENDENT )
OF SCI HOUTZDALE; JOHN WETZEL,
SECRETARY FOR PA DEPT OF )
CORRECTIONS; LEO DUNN, )
CHAIRMAN, PA BOARD OF )
PROBATION AND PAROLE; AND JOSH )
SHAPIRO, PA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents. )

i ORDER
eat
AND NOW, this OU day of October, 2020, in accordance with the accompanying
Memorandum Opinion, the report and recommendation dated August 17, 2020 (ECF No. 16) is
ADOPTED and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability should issue.
AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure, Petitioner has thirty days after entry of the judgment to file a notice of
appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case closed.
4 5 ; } □□ 5 4 4 4,
VAL □□ oor SAY \ \ °
oe IN
be OR \ Mog he: aN i ay NC
Kim R. Gibson
United States District Judge

cc: RANDY P REINERT
JT 0482
Veterans Unit
SCI Houtzdale
PO Box 1000
Houtzdale, Pa 16698-1000
(via U.S. First Class Mail)
Timothy P. Keating
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
(via ECF electronic notification)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10416046. Public record. Not legal advice.