Miller v. Decker et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT of Magistrate Judge Schwab 20 , DISMISSING petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 as MOOT, & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 6/16/14. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THOMAS DECKER, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-0473
(Chief Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 16th day of June, 2014, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 4)
of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab (Doc. 20), recommending the court dismiss the
petition (Doc. 1) for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Wayne
Miller (“Miller”) as moot in light of Miller’s release from immigration custody, and,
following an independent review of the record, the court agreeing with the magistrate
judge that Miller’s petition became moot upon his release from the custody of United
States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, see Nunes v. Decker, 480 F. App’x 173,
174-75 (3d Cir. 2012) (dismissing § 2241 petition as moot because petitioner “achieved the
result he sought in his habeas petition and his change in circumstances has ‘forestalled
any occasion for meaningful review’”), and it appearing that neither party has objected
to the report, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,1 see Nara v.
Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that “failing to timely object to [a
report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo
review at the district court level”), it is hereby ORDERED that:
The report (Doc. 20) of Magistrate Judge Schwab is ADOPTED in its
The petition (Doc. 1) for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to
review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a
matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts 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). The advisory committee notes to Rule
72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that “[w]hen 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.” FED . R. CIV . P. 72(b),
advisory committee notes; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that “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) (holding that the court’s review is conducted under the
“plain error” standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court’s review is limited to ascertaining whether there is “clear error on the
face of the record”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding
that the court will review the report and recommendation for “clear error”). The
court has reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in
accordance with this Third Circuit directive.
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?