OWENS v. LUTHER et al

Filing 23

ORDER THAT THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED, ETC. THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 1 IS DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL NOT ISSUE; AND, THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 06/18/2018. 06/19/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PRISONER AND E-MAILED.(nds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
AMIN L. OWENS,
Petitioner,
v.
JAMEY LUTHER, et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 16-5361

O R D E R
AND NOW, this 18th day of June, 2018, after review of
the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Timothy R. Rice (ECF No. 21) it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1.

1

The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;1

When, as in this case, 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.

2.

The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1)

is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
3.

A certificate of appealability shall not issue; and

4.

The Clerk shall mark this case CLOSED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO,
J.

2