FERGUSON v. CAMERON et al
ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO REMOVE THIS ACTION FROM CIVIL SUSPENSE; THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED; AND THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE AS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 5/24/17. 5/24/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED. (ky, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ARTHUR M. FERGUSON,
KENNETH R. CAMERON, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF :
PENNSYLVANIA, and THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY OF DELAWARE COUNTY,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3257
AND NOW, this 24th day of May, 2017, after carefully considering the petition for
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by the petitioner pro se, Arthur M. Ferguson (Doc.
No. 1), the response to the petition filed by the respondents (Doc. No. 22), and United States
Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells’ report and recommendation filed on April 27, 2017
(Doc. No. 27); and no party having filed written objections to the report and recommendation;
accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The report and recommendation (Doc. No. 27) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1
The clerk of court is DIRECTED to remove this action from civil suspense;
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED;
As indicated above, the petitioner has not filed written objections to the report and recommendation despite 26
days having passed since Judge Wells filed the report and recommendation. Since neither party has filed objections
to Judge Wells’ report and recommendation, the court need not review the report before adopting it. Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, “the better practice is for the district judge to afford some
level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Id. As such, the court will review the report for
plain error. See Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (“In the absence of a timely objection, . . .
this Court will review [the magistrate judge’s] Report and Recommendation for clear error.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)). The court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The court has reviewed Judge Wells’ report for plain
error and has found none.
The petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right, and is therefore not entitled to a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and
The clerk of court shall mark this case as CLOSED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Edward G. Smith
EDWARD G. SMITH, J.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?