THOMAS v. DELBALSO et al

Filing 9

ORDER THAT THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ECF NO. 1 , IS DISMISSEDWITH PREJUDICE. THIS CASE IS CLOSED. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 1/16/18. 1/17/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE, E-MAILED. (mas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
_______________________________________
:
BAKHARI JVONNE THOMAS,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
No. 2:17-cv-04066
:
THERESA DELBALSO;
:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
:
COUNTY OF CHESTER; and
:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
:
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
:
:
Respondents.
:
_______________________________________
:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of January, 2018, upon consideration 1 of the Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1; the Response to the Petition, ECF No. 5; and the Report and
Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, ECF No.
6, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

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 United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 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
Hill v. Barnacle, No. 15-3815, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12370, at *16-17 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding
that even when objections are filed, district courts “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)”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (explaining that in
the absence of a timely objection, the court should review the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation for clear error). 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
011618

1.

The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 6, is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2.

The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE.
3.

This case is CLOSED.

4.

There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

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

2
011618