Jackson v. Warden, FCI Allenwood Low
Filing
8
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Saporito (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. The Petitioners amended habeas petition (Doc. 2) is DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion with the sentencing court. 3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the file on this case. 6 Signed by Honorable John E. Jones, III on 4/6/2017. (sc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN F. JACKSON,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, FCI ALLENWOOD
LOW,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
1:16-cv-910
Hon. John E. Jones III
Hon. Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
ORDER
April 6, 2017
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc.
6) of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that
we dismiss the Petitioner’s amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 2)
without prejudice to his right to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the sentencing
court, in the Western District of Virginia, subject to the preauthorization
requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255(h), and noting that Petitioner has filed
objections (Doc. 7) 1, and the Court finding Judge Saporito’s analysis to be
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. 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). Although the standard of review is de novo, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) permits
1
thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the Court further
finding Petitioner’s objections to be without merit2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT:
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Saporito (Doc. 6)
is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. The Petitioner’s amended habeas petition (Doc. 2) is DIMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
with the sentencing court.
3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the file on this case.
s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
whatever reliance the district court, in the exercise of sound discretion, chooses to place on a
magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations. See United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667, 674-75 (1980); see also Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976); Goney v. Clark,
749 F. 2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).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).
2
Petitioner’s submission contains no arguments that cause us to depart from the Magistrate
Judge’s appropriate reasoning and correct conclusions.
2
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?