welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2018
  5. Lane v. Garman, 18-2813. (2018)

Lane v. Garman, 18-2813. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20181024n80 Visitors: 18
Filed: Oct. 22, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2018
Summary: ORDER NITZA I. QUI ONES ALEJANDRO , District Judge . AND NOW, this 22 nd day of October 2018, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation issued on September 21, 2018, by the Honorable Lynn A. Sitarski, United States Magistrate Judge (the "Magistrate Judge"), [ECF 8], to which no objections were filed by Petitioner Michael Lane ("Petitioner"), and after a careful and independent review of the record, 1 it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVE
More

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22nd day of October 2018, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation issued on September 21, 2018, by the Honorable Lynn A. Sitarski, United States Magistrate Judge (the "Magistrate Judge"), [ECF 8], to which no objections were filed by Petitioner Michael Lane ("Petitioner"), and after a careful and independent review of the record,1 it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. Petitioner's motion for stay and abeyance is DENIED; 3. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, without prejudice; 4. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability; and 5. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.

FootNotes


1. As noted, Petitioner did not file any objection and/or response to the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R"). Therefore, in the absence of any objections, the R&R is reviewed under the "plain error" standard. See Facyson v. Barnhart, 2003 WL 22436274, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2003). Under this plain error standard of review, an R&R should only be rejected if the magistrate judge commits an error that was "(1) clear or obvious, (2) affect[ed] `substantial rights,' and (3) seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings." Leyva v. Williams, 504 F.3d 357, 363 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, after a thorough independent review of the record and the R&R, this Court finds no error was committed by the Magistrate Judge and, therefore, approves and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
18-2813.
Counsels
  • CHRISTINE F. MURPHY
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