Smith v. Reitz

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Mannion 6 , DISMISSING ptnr's petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 w/out prejudice..., & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE matter. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 12/01/11. (ki )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DOUGLAS P. SMITH,
Petitioner
v.
PA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL and
WARDEN EARL REITZ,
Respondents

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-1813
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of December, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion (Doc. 6),
recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be dismissed for
failure to exhaust state court remedies, and, following an independent review of the
record and noting that petitioner filed objections1 to the Report and Recommendation on
November 16, 2011 (Doc. 7), and the court finding Judge Mannion’s analysis to be
thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding petitioner’s objections to be without
merit and squarely addressed by Judge Mannion’s report, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1

Where objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation are
filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the
report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir.
1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). “In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires
‘written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed
findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for
those objections.’” Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL
4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).

1.

The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mannion (Doc. 6) are
ADOPTED.

2.

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice in light of the fact that petitioner has failed to exhaust his
state court remedies with respect to the claims which he now attempts to
raise and because abstention is proper pursuant to the Younger doctrine.

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this matter.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge