Chajchic v. Rowley et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 16 of Magistrate Judge Carlson & DENYING Chajchic's motion to reopen matter 8 . (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 10/3/17. (ki)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GERMAN CHAJCHIC, Petitioner v. JOHN ROWLEY, et al., Respondents : : : : : : : : : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-457 (Chief Judge Conner) ORDER AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2017, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 16) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that the court deny the motion (Doc. 8) by petitioner German Chajchic (“Chajchic”) requesting that the court reopen the above-captioned matter and either (1) order his immediate release from detention or (2) conduct an individualized bond hearing, (see id.), and the court noting that Chajchic filed objections (Doc. 17) to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and respondents filed a brief (Doc. 18) in opposition thereto, and, following a de novo review of the contested portions of the report, see Behar v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 791 F. Supp. 2d 383, 389 (M.D. Pa. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989)), and applying a clear error standard of review to the uncontested portions, see Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376-78 (M.D. Pa. 1999), the court being in full agreement with Judge Carlson’s analysis, and finding same to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and finding Chajchic’s objections (Doc.17) to be without merit and squarely addressed by the report, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The report (Doc. 16) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED. 2. Chajchic’s motion (Doc. 8) to reopen the above-captioned matter is DENIED. /S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge United States District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania

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?