OPHER v. MCGINLEY et al
ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED. A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 4/26/21. 4/26/21 ENTERED. NOT MAILED TO OPHER. (fdc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THOMAS S. MCGINLEY, et al.,
AND NOW, this 26th day of April, 2021, upon
consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and
available state court records, and after review of the Report
and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge
(ECF No. 4), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED
When neither party files timely objections to a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) on a dispositive issue, the
district court is not required to review the R&R before adopting it. Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended
to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party
objects to those findings.”). However, the Third Circuit has held that “in
the absence of objections . . . the better practice is for the district judge
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); see also Fed
R. Civ. P. 72, 1983 advisory committee notes (“When no timely objection is
filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the
face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). In that neither
party has filed objections to the R&R, this Court has reviewed it for clear
error and has found none.
3. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue, in
that the Petitioner has not made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor
demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate
the correctness of the procedural aspects of this
ruling. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and
4. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case CLOSED
for statistical purposes.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, 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?