Filed: Sep. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 27, 2018
Summary: Memorandum Order KIM R. GIBSON , District Judge . This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636, and Local Civil Rule 72. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on November 6, 2017, ECF no. 590, recommending that movant's pleading at ECF no. 589 be denied without prejudice to filing the appropriate motion in the Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244. The parties were notified that pu
Summary: Memorandum Order KIM R. GIBSON , District Judge . This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. 636, and Local Civil Rule 72. The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on November 6, 2017, ECF no. 590, recommending that movant's pleading at ECF no. 589 be denied without prejudice to filing the appropriate motion in the Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2244. The parties were notified that pur..
More
Memorandum Order
KIM R. GIBSON, District Judge.
This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto for proceedings in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C.§ 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.
The Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation on November 6, 2017, ECF no. 590, recommending that movant's pleading at ECF no. 589 be denied without prejudice to filing the appropriate motion in the Court of Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2244. The parties were notified that pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 636(b) (1), they had fourteen days to file written objections. No objections were filed, although months later movant sent correspondence, ECF no. 591, that was forwarded to the Public Defender.
After review of the record of this matter and the Report and Recommendation under the "reasoned consideration" standard, see EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir.2017) (standard of review when no timely and specific objections are filed), the following order is entered:
AND NOW, this 27th day of September, 2018, it is
ORDERED that the motion at ECF no. 589 is denied without prejudice to movant filing a motion for authorization under 28 U.S.C.§ 2244(b) (3) (A) directly in the Court of Appeals. The Report and Recommendation is adopted as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk shall mark the civil matter closed.
