Haskins v. Court of Common Pleas et al
MEMORANDUM (eo, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
DAUPHIN COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, PA
CORRECTIONS, and PA STATE
Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Malachy E. Mannion
June 8, 2011
This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion (Doc. 7), filed on May 19
2011, which recommends that Anthony Haskins’ Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed without prejudice. Objections
to the R&R were due by June 6, 2011 and to date, none have been filed.
Accordingly, this matter is ripe for our review. For the reasons that follow, the
R&R shall be adopted in its entirety and this matter shall be dismissed without
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When, as here, no objections are made to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report
before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the
Third Circuit, however, “the better practice is 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). “[T]he court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating
“the failure of a party to object to a magistrate's legal conclusions may result in the
loss of the right to de novo review in the district court”); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F.
Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa.
1998); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998). The Court’s
examination of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge’s determinations.
On April 14, 2011, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas
corpus claiming that his right to speedy trial was violated in the Dauphin County
Court of Common Pleas. Magistrate Judge Mannion located the docket sheet
related to Petitioner’s case and discovered that Petitioner presently has an appeal of
his convictions pending before the Superior Court. Due to the procedural posture
of Petitioner’s state court criminal case, Magistrate Judge Mannion determined that
the doctrine of Younger abstention1 applies and as a result, the instant petition must
As we have already mentioned, the Petitioner has not filed objections to this
R&R. Because we agree with the sound reasoning that led the Magistrate Judge to
the conclusions in the R&R, we will adopt the R&R in its entirety. With a mind
towards conserving judicial resources, we will not rehash the reasoning of the
Magistrate Judge; rather, we will attach a copy of the R&R to this document, as it
accurately reflects our consideration and resolution of the case sub judice. An
appropriate Order shall issue.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971) holds that federal courts should exercise their
discretion to abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings.
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?