Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Dunyan v. Ferguson, 16-5362. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20180611973 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jun. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 08, 2018
Summary: ORDER EDUARDO C. ROBRENO , District Judge . AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2018, after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski (ECF No. 11) it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 3. A certificate of appealability shall not issue; and 4. The Clerk shall mark this case CLO
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8th day of June, 2018, after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski (ECF No. 11) it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;1 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 3. A certificate of appealability shall not issue; and 4. The Clerk shall mark this case CLOSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. When, as in this case, neither party files timely objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation ("R&R") on a dispositive issue, the district court is not required to review the R&R before adopting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) ("It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings."). However, the Third Circuit has held that "in the absence of objections . . . the better practice is for the district judge 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); see also Fed R. Civ. P. 72, 1983 advisory committee notes ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."). In that neither party has filed objections to the R&R, this Court has reviewed it for clear error and has found none.
Source:  Leagle

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