welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
  4. 2013
  5. PAPPAS v. USP ALLENWOOD WARDEN, 1:12-CV-2070. (2013)

PAPPAS v. USP ALLENWOOD WARDEN, 1:12-CV-2070. (2013)

Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania Number: infdco20130816d04 Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 13, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 2013
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge. AND NOW, this 13th day of August, 2013, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (Doc. 13), recommending that petitioner's habeas petition (Doc. 1) be denied on its merits, and, following an independent review of the record, and noting that petitioner filed objections 1 (Doc. 15) to the report on June 11, 2013, and the court finding Magistrate Judge Blewitt's analysis to be thorough an
More

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 13th day of August, 2013, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (Doc. 13), recommending that petitioner's habeas petition (Doc. 1) be denied on its merits, and, following an independent review of the record, and noting that petitioner filed objections1 (Doc. 15) to the report on June 11, 2013, and the court finding Magistrate Judge Blewitt's analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding the material2 objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Magistrate Judge Blewitt's report (Doc. 13), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Blewitt (Doc. 13) are ADOPTED. 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED on its merits. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

FootNotes


1. Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires `written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).
2. Although immaterial to the court's disposition, the court concurs with petitioner that: (1) The Report and Recommendation erroneously states that petition was incarcerated at FCI Allenwood when he was actually incarcerated at another section of the Allenwood Federal Prison Complex — USP Allenwood; (2) the Report and Recommendation erroneously attributes certain misspelled words to petitioner's hand when the words are spelled correctly in the petition. Compare Doc. 1, pp. 7-9 with Doc. 13, pp. 1-2.
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
1:12-CV-2070.
Counsels
  • Mark Morrison
  • Michael Butler
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