VELEZ-MERCADO v. GARMAN et al

Filing 16

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PETITIONER'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED. THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE NITZA I QUINONES ALEJANDRO ON 5/31/17. 6/1/17 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER, E-MAILED TO COUNSEL.(pr, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LUIS MANUEL VELEZ-MERCADO,
Petitioner-pro se
v.
MARK GARMAN, et al.
Respondents

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-5082

ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of May 2017, upon consideration of the pleadings and record herein,
and after careful and independent consideration of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) submitted
by United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa (“Magistrate Judge Caracappa”), [ECF 11],1 to
which no objections were filed,2 it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.

2.

Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

3.

There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.

The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:
/s/ Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro
NITZA I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO, J.
Judge, United States District Court
1

The underlying petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Petitioner Luis Manuel Velez-Mercado
(“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 was originally assigned to the Honorable James Knoll Gardner. On
November 29, 2016, this case was referred to Magistrate Judge Caracappa pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B) and
Local Rule 72.1.IV(c), for an R&R. [ECF 4]. On March 16, 2017, Magistrate Judge Caracappa issued an R&R
suggesting that the petition be denied. [ECF 11]. On that same day, Petitioner was sent a copy of the R&R with a
Notice advising him that any party had 14 days to file timely objections to the R&R (the “Notice”), [ECF 11-2].
However, the mail was returned as undeliverable. On March 22, 2017, Petitioner sent a letter advising the court of
a change of address. [ECF 13]. On March 31, 2017, the R&R and the Notice were remailed to Petitioner’s new
address. [ECF 14]. On May 30, 2017, this matter was reassigned to the undersigned. [ECF 15]. As of the date of
this Order, Petitioner has not filed any objections to the R&R.
Because no objections to the R&R have been filed, this Court’s review of the R&R is under the “plain
error” standard. See Facyson v. Barnhart, 2003 WL 22436274, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2003). Under this plain
error standard of review, an R&R should only be rejected if the magistrate judge commits an error that was “(1)
clear or obvious, (2) affect[ed] substantial rights, and (3) seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings.” Leyva v. Williams, 504 F.3d 357, 363 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). After a thorough consideration and review of the record and the R&R, this Court finds no error
was committed and, therefore, adopts the R&R in its entirety.
2