Marlowe v. Bowser et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 , dismissing Petition 1 , and closing the case. Signed by Honorable Edwin M. Kosik on 11/16/2016. (emksec, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
:
KEVIN MARLOWE,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
JENNIFER BOWSER, et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
____________________________________

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1774

(Judge Kosik)

ORDER
AND NOW, THIS 16th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2015, IT APPEARING TO THE
COURT THAT:
[1] Petitioner, Kevin Marlowe, a federal prisoner housed in a half-way house, the Capitol
Pavilion, filed pro se, the instant petition on September 11, 2015 (Doc. 1), raising concerns
regarding the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) levying a tax on his travel reimbursement expenses;
[2] The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson;
[3] On October 2, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Respondents an Order to Show
Cause (Doc. 5);
[4] On October 19, 2015, Petitioner filed a response to the order (Doc. 7), in which
Petitioner stated, “After filing my petition with this court, the BOP has conceded and stated that
they will not levy their tax on this expense. They have returned my money order. This is a
wonderful and correct step in settling this petition.”
[5] On October 21, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 9), recommending that Marlowe’s petition be dismissed as moot in light of Marlowe’s
letter to the Court, stating that the BOP stopped levying the tax and returned the money order;
[6] Plaintiff has failed to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation;
AND, IT FURTHER APPEARING THAT:
[7] If no objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the
Plaintiff is not statutorily entitled to a de novo review of his claims. 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985). Nonetheless, the usual practice of the district
court is to give “reasoned consideration” to a magistrate judge’s report prior to adopting it.
Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987);
[8] We have considered the Magistrate Judge’s report and we concur with his
recommendation. We agree that the BOP not levying a tax on Marlowe’s travel reimbursement
expenses and the return of his money order, eliminates Marlowe’s personal stake in the outcome.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
[1] The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson dated
October 21, 2015 (Doc. 9) is ADOPTED;
[2] Marlowe’s Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED; and
[3] The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and FORWARD a copy of this
Order to the Magistrate Judge.

s/Edwin M. Kosik
Edwin M. Kosik
United States District Judge