Diehl-Armstrong v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 12 . The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. No certificate of appealability shall issue. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE the file on this case. Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 5/7/14. (pw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARJORIE DIEHL-ARMSTRONG, :
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF
PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., :
Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Martin C. Carlson
May 7, 2014
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of
Chief United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 12), recommending
that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and that no certificate of
appealability shall issue, after an independent review of the record, and noting that
Petitioner filed objections1 (Doc. 13) to the report on May 6, 2014, and the Court
finding Judge Carlson’s analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully
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. Supinksi 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).
supported by the record, and the Court further finding Plaintiff’s objections to be
without merit2 and squarely addressed by Judge Carlson’s report IT IS HEREBY
The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc.
12) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
No certificate of appealability shall issue.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case.
s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
Petitioner’s objections are completely devoid of any legally meritorious arguments. We
concur entirely with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Petitioner has failed to make a
showing that the decisions of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole offend
constitutional due process considerations.
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?