WHITE v. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF LANCASTER et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE RICHARD A. LLORET. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL CLOSE THIS CASE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 5/15/17. 5/15/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED. (ky, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
EDWARD WHITE,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
v.
:
:
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE
:
COUNTY OF LANCASTER and
:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
:
STATE OF PA,
:
:
Defendants.
:
__________________________________________

No. 5:16-cv-03895

ORDER
On November 7, 2016, the undersigned referred Edward White’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus to United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret for a report and
recommendation. On April 13, 2017, Magistrate Judge Lloret issued a report and
recommendation that White’s petition be dismissed with prejudice as untimely. Thirty-two days
have passed, and no objections have been filed. 1
This 15th day of May, 2017, having reviewed the report and recommendation, 2 it is
ORDERED as follows:
1.

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

2.

White’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice.

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
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