SHILOH v. WILKES, 1:14-cv-860. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20150915b43
Visitors: 6
Filed: Sep. 14, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 14, 2015
Summary: ORDER JOHN E. JONES, III , District Judge . AND NOW , upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick (Doc. 29), recommending that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that a certificate of appealability should not issue, and after an independent review of the record, and noting that Petitioner filed objections 1 (Doc. 30) to the report on September 9, 2015 and the Cou
Summary: ORDER JOHN E. JONES, III , District Judge . AND NOW , upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick (Doc. 29), recommending that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that a certificate of appealability should not issue, and after an independent review of the record, and noting that Petitioner filed objections 1 (Doc. 30) to the report on September 9, 2015 and the Cour..
More
ORDER
JOHN E. JONES, III, District Judge.
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick (Doc. 29), recommending that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that a certificate of appealability should not issue, and after an independent review of the record, and noting that Petitioner filed objections1 (Doc. 30) to the report on September 9, 2015 and the Court finding Judge Mehalchick's analysis to be extremely thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the Court further finding Plaintiff's objections to be without merit2 and squarely addressed by Judge Mehalchick's report IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick (Doc. 29) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the file on 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. Supinksi 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. Petitioner's objections to the R&R contain no arguments that cause us to part company with the Magistrate Judge's thoughtfully considered recommendations. As correctly noted by the Magistrate Judge, the claims asserted by Petitioner in her petition are either procedurally defaulted or entirely non-cognizable (i.e. ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel). Accordingly, the recommendation to deny and dismiss this petition is entirely appropriate and we adopt the Magistrate Judge's reasoning in whole by adopting her recommendations.
Source: Leagle
