Guerrero v. Lowe
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 7 of Magistrate Judge Carlson, DENYING petition for writ of h/c 1 & directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 10/3/17. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GUERRERO SILVESTRE ALONSO,
CRAIG LOWE, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1068
(Chief Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2017, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 7) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending the court deny the
petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner Guerrero Silvestre
Alonso (“Alonso”), and it appearing that no party has objected to the report, see
FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object
to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the
district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson
v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a
district court should “afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by
the report,” Henderson, 812 F.2d 878; see also Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 83 F.
Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 702
F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to “satisfy itself that there is no clear
error on the face of the record,” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes, and,
following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with
Judge Carlson’s recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the
face of the record,1 it is hereby ORDERED that:
The report (Doc. 7) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.
Alonso’s petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 is DENIED.
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
The magistrate judge’s report (Doc. 7) issued July 27, 2017, before Alonso’s
reply brief deadline of July 28, 2017 had expired. (See Doc. 4). Alonso timely filed
his reply on July 28, 2017. (Doc. 8). In reviewing the magistrate judge’s report, we
have considered Alonso’s reply arguments and conclude that same are inapposite.
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?