Filed: Apr. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 10, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER , Chief District Judge . AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2019, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 21) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that we deny the petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 by petitioner Luckenson Dorceant ("Dorceant"), wherein Judge Carlson opines that Dorceant's Section 2241 claim—to wit, that his due process rights were violated in the course of disciplinary proceedings conducted by t
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER , Chief District Judge . AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2019, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 21) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that we deny the petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 by petitioner Luckenson Dorceant ("Dorceant"), wherein Judge Carlson opines that Dorceant's Section 2241 claim—to wit, that his due process rights were violated in the course of disciplinary proceedings conducted by th..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.
AND NOW, this 10th day of April, 2019, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 21) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that we deny the petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by petitioner Luckenson Dorceant ("Dorceant"), wherein Judge Carlson opines that Dorceant's Section 2241 claim—to wit, that his due process rights were violated in the course of disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons—is without merit, (see Doc. 21 at 13-15), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should afford "reasoned consideration" to the uncontested portions of the report, E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson, 812 F.2d at 879), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and following independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Carlson's recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The report (Doc. 21) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.
2. Dorceant's petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
