Santiago v. Saul

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 & supp'l Report & Recommendation 8 of Magistrate Judge Blewitt; GRANTING ptnr's IFP motion 4 solely for purpose of filing this case, DISMISSING ptnr's habeas petition 1 without preju dice to re-file after ptnr exhausts his state court remedies w/ re: his claims, directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case, & noting any appeal from this order is DEEMED frivolous & not in good faith. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 8/13/13. (ki)

Santiago v. Saul

Doc. 13

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

DIMAS SANTIAGO,
Plaintiff
v.
ADAM SAUL, et al.,
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-749
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of August, 2013, upon consideration of the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 7) and Supplemental Report and Recommendation (Doc. 8) of
United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt, recommending that petitioner’s
Habeas Petition (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice to re-file after he exhausts his
state court remedies, and that petitioner’s in forma pauperis be granted, and, following
an independent review of the record, and noting that petitioner filed objections1 to the
reports (Docs. 7, 8) on May 6, 2013, and the court finding Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s
analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding the objections to be
without merit and squarely addressed by Magistrate Judge Blewitt’s reports (Doc. 7, 8), 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)).

Dockets.Justia.com

1.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7) and Supplemental Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 8) of Magistrate Judge Blewitt are ADOPTED.

2.

Petitioner’s in forma pauperis motion (Doc. 4) is GRANTED solely for the
purpose of filing this case.

3.

Petitioner’s habeas petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice to
re-file after petitioner exhausts his state court remedies with respect to his
claims.

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

5.

Any appeal from this order is DEEMED frivolous and not in good faith. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

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