Graewe v. Spaulding

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: adopting 21 Report and Recommendation; petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; denying 18 Motion for Leave to File; denying 19 Motion for Leave to File; denying 20 Motion to Compel; clerk directed to close the case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 12/16/16. (case closed)(lg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HERTMUT GRAEWE, Petitioner, v. WARDEN S. SPAULDING, Respondent. : : : : : : : : : : Case No. 4:15-CV-2002 (Judge Brann) (Magistrate Judge Schwab) ORDER December 16, 2016 BACKGROUND: On October 15, 2015, Petitioner, Hertmut Graewe, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On September 7, 2016 Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, to whom the petition is jointly assigned, issued a report and recommendation recommending that the petition be denied.1 Petitioner filed objections2 to the report and recommendation, and the respondent filed a response to those objections.3 1 ECF NO. 21. 2 ECF Nos. 22 and 24. 3 ECF No. 23. 1 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."4 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.5 Petitioner’s objections raise identical arguments as he did in his initial briefs that were the subject of the instant report and recommendation from Magistrate Judge Schwab. 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 Magistrate Judge. The report and recommendation is adopted in full. ECF No. 21. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. October 15, 2015, ECF No. 1. 4 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)). 5 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. 2 2. The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED in full. September 7, 2016, ECF No. 21. 3. Petitioner’s other motions are DENIED. ECF Nos. 18, 19, and 20. 4. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 5. 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?