Chisley v. Kauffman et al

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 27 Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation is adopted; 1 Chisley's petition is denied; the Court declines to issue certificate of appealability; Clerk directed to close this case. Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 3/25/2020. (case closed)(lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LAVON D. CHISLEY,

No. 4:16-CV-01980

Petitioner,

(Judge Brann)

v.

(Magistrate Judge Carlson)

SUPERINTENDENT KEVIN
KAUFFMAN, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
MARCH 25, 2020
LaVon D. Chisley, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254
petition seeking to vacate his convictions and sentence.1 Chisley raises numerous
claims in his petition, including several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
and claims related to purportedly erroneous jury instructions and an illegal sentence.2
In November 2019, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the petition.3 Magistrate
Judge Carlson recommends finding that Chisley’s claims are procedurally defaulted,
and that no exceptions would permit this Court to consider the claims.4 He also

1
2
3
4

Doc. 1.
Id.; Doc. 26.
Doc. 27.
Id. at 19-22.

concludes that, regardless of whether Chisley’s claims were properly exhausted, they
are without merit.5
After receiving an extension of time, Chisley filed timely objections to the
Report and Recommendation.6 Chisley raises five primary objections, asserting that
Magistrate Judge Carlson erred in: (1) giving deference to the state court rulings
when there was no evidentiary hearing and, thus, no adjudication on the merits in
state court; (2) concluding that Chisley’s claims are procedurally defaulted; (3)
failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing; (4) failing to recognize that the state court
proceedings were unfair and denied due process to Chisley; and (5) failing to address
material facts that are in dispute.7 Chisley devotes the remainder of his objections
to rearguing the merits of some of his underlying claims.8
“If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”9
Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject,
or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or

5
6
7
8
9

Id. at 23-38.
Doc. 30.
Id. at 2-12.
Id. at 12-28.
Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
2

recommendations.10 Upon de novo review, the Court finds no error in Magistrate
Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:
1.

Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 27) is ADOPTED;

2.

Chisley’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED;

3.

The Court declines to issue certificate of appealability;11 and

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

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

10
11

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (setting forth legal standard).
3