Castro v. Gilmore et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Carlson's 18 Report and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety; Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied; Clerk is directed to close this case; a certificate of appealability will not issue.Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 11/28/17. (case closed) (lg)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSE ALBERT CASTRO,
ROBERT GILMORE, et al.,
(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
NOVEMBER 28, 2017
Before the Court for disposition is a Report and Recommendation filed by
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson on September 20, 2017.1 In this Report,
Magistrate Judge Carlson recommended that (1) the instant Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be denied; (2) a certificate of
appealability should not issue; and (3) the Clerk be directed to close this case.2 No
objections to this Report and Recommendation have since been filed.
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.”3 Once filed, this Report and Recommendation is
ECF No. 18.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written
objections.4 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.5
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.6
For portions of the Report and Recommendation to which no objection is
made, a 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.”7
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.8
Following a de novo review of the record, I am satisfied that the Report and
Recommendation contains no error. In the interests of judicial economy, I will not
rehash Magistrate Judge Carlson’s sound reasoning and legal citation. The Court
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
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
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
is in full agreement that Petitioner’s claims are either procedurally defaulted or
AND NOW, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 18) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY;
2. The instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 is DENIED;
3. The Clerk of Courts is directed to close this case.
4. A Certificate of Appealability will not issue.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge
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?