Alexis Fields v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ALEXIS FIELDS, ) ) ) No. 2:26-cv-08 Petitioner, ) ) v. ) District Judge Robert J. Colville ) COMMONWEALTH OF ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly PENNSYLVANIA, ) ) Respondent. ) )

ORDER OF COURT Currently pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5) filed by the Honorable Maureen P. Kelly in the above-captioned matter. Judge Kelly’s January 13, 2026 Report and Recommendation recommends as follows: (1) to the extent that the “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (ECF No. 4) filed by Petitioner Alexis Fields is properly construed as an attempt to remove the pending state criminal charges against Petitioner, see https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-02-CR-0000753- 2026&dnh=JX%2Fct2iREF5TngpK3Kdwaw%3D%3D, to federal court, the case should be remanded because removal is facially improper; and (2) to the extent that the Petition may otherwise be construed as a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, it should be dismissed sua sponte pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and a certificate of appealability should be denied. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due by January 30, 2026. No objections were filed, and the Court considers this matter to be ripe for disposition.

“The Federal Magistrates Act provides two separate standards of judicial review of orders on matters referred to magistrate judges.” Alarmax Distributors, Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 2:14-cv-1527, 2015 WL 12756857, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2015) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).

A district court reviews objections to a magistrate judge’s decision on non-dispositive matters to determine whether any part of the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

Objections to a magistrate judge’s disposition of a dispositive matter are subject to de novo review before the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The reviewing district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to which objections are made. Id. Following de novo review, “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained that, “even absent objections to the report and recommendation, a district court should ‘afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,’” and has “described this level of review as ‘reasoned consideration.’” Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987)).

Upon reasoned consideration of Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation, and following review of all relevant docket entries, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: The Court agrees with the thorough and well-reasoned analysis set forth in Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation, and the Court accepts and adopts Judge Kelly’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the Court with respect to Petitioner’s Petition.

Because removal is facially improper, it is hereby ORDERED that, to the extent that the Petition (ECF No. 4) filed by Petitioner Alexis Fields is properly construed as an attempt to remove the pending state criminal charges against Petitioner to federal court, this case is hereby remanded to the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County forthwith. It is hereby further ORDERED that, to the extent that the Petition can be construed as a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Petition is dismissed sua sponte pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

The Court finds that, because jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether this case should be remanded and whether Petitioner’s claims should be dismissed, Petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. The denial of a certificate of appealability does not prevent Petitioner from appealing the order denying her petition so long as she seeks, and obtains, a certificate of appealability, from the Court of Appeals. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case as CLOSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/Robert J. Colville_______ Robert J. Colville United States District Judge DATED: April 17, 2026 cc: Alexis Fields 6413 Station St. Pittsburgh, PA 15206