Matthews v. Warden FCI Allenwood

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 - Accordingly, IT ISHEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED. 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to cl ose this case. 4. A certificate of appealability shall not issue as Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 6/11/19. (dmn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALEXANDER OTIS MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN FCI ALLENWOOD,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:18-cv-0077

Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

ORDER
Before the court is a report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
(Doc.17) in which he recommends that Petitioner Alexander Matthew’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be denied. No objections have been filed.
In the petition, Matthews, a federal inmate confined at LSCI Allenwood in
Allenwood, Pennsylvania, challenges the prison’s disciplinary process generally on
due process grounds and asserts that sanctions imposed on him by the prison were
improper because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of misconduct
on his part. After a close examination of the record, the magistrate judge found that
Matthews was afforded full procedural protections and that there was sufficient
evidence to support the prison’s finding of misconduct.
In considering whether to adopt a report and recommendation when no
objections have been filed, the court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac
Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)
(explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for
clear error). Following an independent review of the record, the court is satisfied
that the report and recommendation contains no clear error, and will therefore adopt
the recommendation and deny the petition for habeas corpus. Accordingly, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is ADOPTED.
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
4. A certificate of appealability shall not issue as Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge

Dated: June 11, 2019