QUINONES v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al

Filing 11

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, ECF NO. 9, IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. PETITIONER'S CLAIM AGAINST THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE AS MOOT. THE REMAINING CLAIM IN THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS I S TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY IN ACCORDANCE WITH 28 U.S.C. § 2241(A). THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. THE CLERK OF THE COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 12/7/17. 12/8/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PETITIONER, E-MAILED.(er, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
JUAN QUINONES,
Petitioner,

:
:
:
v.
:
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;
:
STATE OF NEW JERSEY; and
:
WARDEN G. MAY,
:
Respondents.
:
__________________________________________

Civil No. 2:17-cv-02792

ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of December, 2017, upon consideration of the petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Timothy R. Rice, and in the absence of any objections to the Report and
Recommendation, 1 IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 9, is APPROVED and ADOPTED;

2.

Petitioner’s claim against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is DENIED with

prejudice as moot.
3.

The remaining claim in the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a);
1

When neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court is not statutorily required to review the report, under de novo or any other standard.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Nevertheless, the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it is better practice to afford some level of review to
dispositive legal issues raised by the report. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.
1987), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (1987). “When no objections are filed, the district court need
only review the record for plain error or manifest injustice.” Harper v. Sullivan, No. 89-4272,
1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2168, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991); see also Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F.
Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The district 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).
1
120717

4.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability; and

5.

The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

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

2
120717