BALDWIN v. ORTIZ et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPOTED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILTY AND THIS CASE SHALL BE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 1/24/17. 1/24/17 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (jpd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID ORTIZ, et al.,
AND NOW, this 24th day of January, 2017, upon careful and independent consideration
of the petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 1), the Commonwealth’s Response, (ECF
No. 12), and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra
Moore Wells, (ECF No. 14), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;1
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice;
3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability;2 and
4. This case shall be CLOSED for statistical purposes.
When no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the court should, as a matter of good practice,
“satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes; see also Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (“In the
absence of a timely objection, therefore, this Court will review [a] Magistrate Judge[‘s] . . . Report and
Recommendation for ‘clear error.’ ”). No clear error appears on the face of the record and the Court accordingly
accepts Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells’ recommendation.
Reasonable jurists would not debate the Court’s disposition of petitioner’s claims. See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Gerald J. Pappert
GERALD J. PAPPERT, 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?