CARNEY v. MCGINLEY et al
ORDERED THAT MAGISTRATE JUDGE PERKIN'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; CARNEY'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE AND THIS CASE SHALL BE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 11/20/17. 11/20/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER AND EMAILED TO COUNSEL.(jaa, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THOMAS MCGINLEY et al.,
AND NOW, this 20th day of November, 2017, upon consideration of the Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus and accompanying Memorandum of Law, (ECF No. 1),
Respondents’ Responses in Opposition, (ECF Nos. 7, 12, 13), and the Report and
Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Henry Perkin, (ECF No. 14), it is hereby
1. Magistrate Judge Perkin’s Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and
2. Carney’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED
3. No certificate of appealability shall issue;2
4. This case shall be CLOSED for statistical purposes.
There are no objections to the Report and Recommendation. 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’s 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 Perkin’s 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?