Deloir v. Ebbert

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting 23 Report and Recommendation; petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability; clerk directed to close the case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 12/1/16. (case closed)(lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Daniel Deloir,
Petitioner,
v.
David J. Ebbert,

Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Case No. 3:15-cv-02287
(Judge Brann)

(Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson)

ORDER
December 1, 2016
BACKGROUND:
On November 27, 2015, Petitioner, Daniel Deloir, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1
On July 5, 2016 Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, to whom the
petition is jointly assigned, issued a report and recommendation recommending
that the petition be denied. Petitioner did not file objections.
For portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is
made, the court should, as a matter of good practice, "satisfy itself that there is no

1

The matter was originally assigned to The Honorable Robert D. Mariani. It was
transferred to the undersigned on November 21, 2016.
1

clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."2
Regardless of whether timely objections are made by a party, the district court may
accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge.3
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the report and recommendation and has
satisfied itself that there is no clear error. For the sake of judicial economy, the
undersigned will not rehash the sound reasoning of the Chief Magistrate Judge.
The report and recommendation is adopted in full. ECF No. 23.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. November 27,
2015, ECF No. 1.

2.

The Report and Recommendation of the Chief Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED in full. July 5, 2016, ECF No. 23.

3.

There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

4.

The clerk is directed to close the case file.
BY THE COURT:

2

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) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874,
878 (3d Cir.1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)).
3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
2

/s Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

3