welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2018
  5. THOMAS v. DELBALSO, 2:17-cv-04066. (2018)

THOMAS v. DELBALSO, 2:17-cv-04066. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20180118b80 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jan. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. , District Judge . AND NOW , this 16 th day of January, 2018, upon consideration 1 of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1; the Response to the Petition, ECF No. 5; and the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, ECF No. 6, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT : 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 6, is APPROVED and ADOPTED . 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 16th day of January, 2018, upon consideration1 of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1; the Response to the Petition, ECF No. 5; and the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, ECF No. 6, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 6, is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3. This case is CLOSED.

4. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

FootNotes


1. When neither party objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report, under de novo or any other standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that it is better practice to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (1987). "When no objections are filed, the district court need only review the record for plain error or manifest injustice." Harper v. Sullivan, No. 89-4272, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2168, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991). See also Hill v. Barnacle, No. 15-3815, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12370, at *16-17 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding that even when objections are filed, district courts "are not required to make any separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge's recommendation de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)"); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F.Supp.2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (explaining that in the absence of a timely objection, the court should review the magistrate judge's report and recommendation for clear error). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
2:17-cv-04066.
Counsels
  • NICHOLAS J. CASENTA, JR.
Similar Cases

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer