Salais v. Doll, 4:17-CV-01478. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20180608f86
Visitors: 27
Filed: Jun. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2018
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN , District Judge . 1. On August 18, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 1. 2. In a May 22, 2018 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle recommended dismissing that petition as moot. ECF No. 7. 3. Neither party has objected to that recommendation. 4. This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's Report and Recommendation and has determined that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." 1 5
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN , District Judge . 1. On August 18, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 1. 2. In a May 22, 2018 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle recommended dismissing that petition as moot. ECF No. 7. 3. Neither party has objected to that recommendation. 4. This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's Report and Recommendation and has determined that "there is no clear error on the face of the record." 1 5...
More
ORDER
MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.
1. On August 18, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 1.
2. In a May 22, 2018 Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge William I. Arbuckle recommended dismissing that petition as moot. ECF No. 7.
3. Neither party has objected to that recommendation.
4. This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's Report and Recommendation and has determined that "there is no clear error on the face of the record."1
5. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
a. Magistrate Judge Arbuckle's Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 7, is ADOPTED; and
b. Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
FootNotes
1. Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010) ("When no timely objection is filed [to a Report and Recommendation], the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept" it.)
Source: Leagle
