Fink v. Gilmore, 3:16-CV-01867. (2019)
Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20191231c91
Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN , District Judge . George H. Fink, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition seeking to vacate his convictions and sentence. 1 In his petition, Fink asserts that his Miranda 2 rights were violated, and that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. 3 On October 1, 2019, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the petition. 4 Fink sought and received an extension
Summary: ORDER MATTHEW W. BRANN , District Judge . George H. Fink, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition seeking to vacate his convictions and sentence. 1 In his petition, Fink asserts that his Miranda 2 rights were violated, and that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. 3 On October 1, 2019, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the petition. 4 Fink sought and received an extension o..
More
ORDER
MATTHEW W. BRANN, District Judge.
George H. Fink, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition seeking to vacate his convictions and sentence.1 In his petition, Fink asserts that his Miranda2 rights were violated, and that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects.3 On October 1, 2019, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the petition.4 Fink sought and received an extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation.5 Objections were thus due on December 16, 2019, but no timely objections were filed.
Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will review the recommendation only for clear error.6 Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.7 After reviewing the record, the Court finds no error—clear or otherwise—in Magistrate Judge Carlson's conclusion that Fink's petition is without merit. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 36) is ADOPTED;
2. Fink's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED;
3. The Court declines to issue certificate of appealability;8 and
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
FootNotes
1. Doc. 1.
2. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
3. Doc. 1.
4. Doc. 36.
5. Docs. 37, 38.
6. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed).
7. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
8. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (setting forth legal standard).
Source: Leagle
