MONTERO v. DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY/SEC OF STATE

Filing 16

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ECF NO. 12, IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE OBJECTIONS, ECF NO. 15, TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ECF NOS. 1 AND 3, IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. THE CASE IS CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 11/16/17. 11/16/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER, E-MAILED.(er, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
________________________________________________
MANUEL RAUL REYO PENA GARCIA MONTERO
Petitioner,

:
:
:
v.
:
:
DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY/SEC OF STATE,
:
Respondents.
:
________________________________________________

No. 2:15-cv-05821

ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2017, after de novo review of Manuel Raul
Reyes Pena Garcia Montero’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF Nos. 1 and 3; the
Commonwealth’s response in opposition, ECF No. 9; the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
of Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret, ECF No. 12; the Opinion and Order attached as Exhibit A
to the R&R, which addresses a substantially identical petition filed by Petitioner in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Ex. A, ECF No. 12; and the
objections to the R&R, ECF No. 15, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 12, is APPROVED and

ADOPTED; 1

1

When objections to a report and recommendation have been filed under 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C), the district court must make a de novo review of those portions of the report to
which specific objections are made. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989);
Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984) (“providing a complete de novo determination
where only a general objection to the report is offered would undermine the efficiency the
magistrate system was meant to contribute to the judicial process”). “District Courts, however,
are not required to make any separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate
Judge’s recommendation de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).” Hill v. Barnacle, 655 F. App’x.
142, 147 (3d Cir. 2016). The district “court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings and recommendations” contained in the report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
1
111617

2.

The objections, ECF No. 15, to the Report and Recommendation are

OVERRULED;
3.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF Nos. 1 and 3, is DENIED and

DISMISSED with prejudice;
4.

There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability; 2

5.

The case is CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr._______
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge

2

“When, as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the petitioner
seeking a COA must show both ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Gonzalez v.
Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648 (2012) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
2
111617