KING v. WINGARD et al

Filing 24

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY R. RICE IS ADOPTED. KING'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 6/19/17. 6/20/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED. (ky, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
SHARKEEN KING,

:
:
Petitioner
:
v.
:
:
TREVOR A. WINGARD;
:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
:
OF PENNSYLVANIA; and
:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF
:
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY,
:
:
Respondents
:
__________________________________________

No. 2:16-cv-02185

ORDER
On May 17, 2016, the Court referred Sharkeen King’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
to United States Magistrate Judge Timothy R. Rice for a report and recommendation. On May
16, 2017, Judge Rice issued a report and recommendation that King’s petition be denied with
prejudice, on the ground that each of his claims lacks merit (with the exception of his claim that
the mandatory minimum sentences he received were not constitutionally imposed and his claim
that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance, both of which Judge Rice found to be
procedurally defaulted and, in any event, meritless). Thirty-four days have passed, and no
objections have been filed. 1
This 19th day of June, 2017, having reviewed the Report and Recommendation, ECF
No. 21, 2 it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.

2.

King’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED with prejudice.

1

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (providing that a party who wishes to object to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation must file written objections within “fourteen days after being served with a copy”); Fed. R. Civ. P.
5(b)(2) (providing that when service is made by mail, service is complete upon mailing); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d)
(providing that when a party must act within a specified time after being served and service is made by mail, three
days are added to the deadline).
2
See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (“While [§ 636] may not require, in the
absence of objections, the district court to review the magistrate’s report before accepting it, we believe that the
better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.”
(citation omitted)).

1

3.

The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
BY THE COURT:

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

2