SLOWE v. CAMRON et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. NO. 12 ) IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; THE PETITIONERS MOTION TO STAY IS GRANTED AND THE COURT WILL HOLD THE HABEAS PETITION IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE PETITIONERS EXHAUSTIO N OF STATE REMEDIES; THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CONTINUE TO PLACE THIS CASE ON THE CIVIL SUSPENSE DOCKET; THE PETITIONER SHALL EXHAUST ALL CLAIMS IN STATE COURT; WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE CONCLUSION OF THE STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS, INCLU DING ANY APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS RELATED THERETO, THE PETITIONER SHALL NOTIFY THE COURT THAT THOSE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUDED AND THE CASE IS READY TO PROCEED IN THIS COURT. THE PETITIONER SHALL SO NOTIFY THE COURT BY FILING A NOTICE WITH THE CLERK OF COURT; AND THE STATE COURT RECORD (NO. CP-23-CR-2955-2008) SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE STATE COURT FOR USE IN THE STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDWARD G. SMITH ON 1/10/17. 1/10/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE AND UNREPS.(mas, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KENNETH CAMERON, Superintendent
S.C.I. Houtzdale, and THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-60
AND NOW, this 10th day of January, 2017, after considering the petition for writ of
habeas corpus and supporting memorandum of law filed by the pro se petitioner, Tyrone Slowe
(Doc. Nos. 1, 5); the respondents’ response in opposition to the petition (Doc. No. 6); the
petitioner’s reply to the respondents’ response (Doc. No. 7); the respondents’ supplemental
response to the petition (Doc. No. 9); the state court record; and the report and recommendation
filed by the Honorable Henry S. Perkin (Doc. No. 12); and no party having filed objections to the
report and recommendation despite the period for filing objections having passed; accordingly, it
is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The report and recommendation (Doc. No. 12) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 1
The petitioner’s motion to stay is GRANTED and the court will hold the habeas
petition in abeyance pending the petitioner’s exhaustion of state remedies;
Since neither party has filed objections to Judge Perkin’s 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 Perkin’s report for plain error and has found none.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to continue to place this case on the civil
The petitioner shall exhaust all claims in state court;
Within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the state court proceedings, including
any appellate proceedings related thereto, the petitioner shall notify the court that those
proceedings are concluded and the case is ready to proceed in this court. The petitioner shall so
notify the court by filing a notice with the Clerk of Court; and
The state court record (No. CP-23-CR-2955-2008) shall be returned to the state
court for use in the state court proceedings.
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?