Bartelho v. Ebbert

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 9 of Magistrate Judge Carlson, DENYING petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 , finding no basis to issue certficate of appealability, & directin Clrk of Ct to CLOSE cas. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 4/29/19. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THOMAS J. BARTELHO,
Petitioner
v.
WARDEN DAVID EBBERT,
Respondent

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-336
(Chief Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of April, 2019, upon consideration of the report
(Doc. 9) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that we deny the
petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by
petitioner Thomas J. Bartelho (“Bartelho”), wherein Judge Carlson opines that
Campbell’s petition is both unexhausted and meritless, (see Doc. 9 at 4-18), 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 “reasoned consideration” to the uncontested portions of the report,
E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Henderson,
812 F.2d at 879), 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, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The report (Doc. 9) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2.

Bartelho’s petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

3.

The court finds no basis to issue a certificate of appealability. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 11(a).

4.

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