Buckwalter v. Lancaster Probation & Parole et al
Filing
20
ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 18 is ADOPTED in full. There is no basis for a certificate of appealability to issue. The Clerk is directed to close the case file. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 2/16/2017. (jn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ERIC BUCKWALTER,
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
LANCASTER PROBATION AND :
PAROLE, PA ATTORNEY
:
GENERAL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY :
OF CENTRE COUNTY,
:
:
Respondents.
:
Civil Action No. 4:14-CV-1311
(Judge Brann)
(Magistrate Judge Schwab)
ORDER
February 16, 2017
On July 8, 2014, Petitioner, Eric Buckwalter, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 7, 2016 Chief
Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, to whom the petition is jointly assigned, issued
a report and recommendation recommending that the petition be denied. Petitioner,
through counsel, filed objections to the report and recommendation.
Upon designation, a magistrate judge may "conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of
fact and recommendations."1 Once filed, this Report and Recommendation is
1
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
1
disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written
objections.2 When objections are timely filed, the District Court must conduct a de
novo review of those portions of the report to which objections are made.3 Although
the standard of review for objections is de novo, the extent of review lies within the
discretion of the District Court, and the court may otherwise rely on the
recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.4
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
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation."5
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.6
Because I write only for the parties, I will conserve judicial resources and not
2
28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).
3
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir.2011).
4
Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
5
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)).
6
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
2
rehash the thorough and well-written report and recommendation. The Petitioner’s
objections are overruled, as he has provided no persuasive argument sufficient to
find that the magistrate judge erred; there was no due process violation in this
matter. The report and recommendation will be adopted in full and the case
dismissed.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
1.
The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. July 8, 2014,
ECF No. 1.
2.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED in full. December 7, 2016, ECF No. 18.
3.
There is no basis for a certificate of appealability to issue.
4.
The Clerk is directed to close the case file.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
3
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?