Bradley v. U.S. Parole Comm'n

Full title: WALTER BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Jun 15, 2017

No. 4:15-CV-00247 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 15, 2017)

Opinion

No. 4:15-CV-00247

06-15-2017

WALTER BRADLEY, Petitioner, v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Judge Brann

() (Magistrate Judge Saporito) ORDER

Before the Court for disposition is a Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. on May 23, 2017.¹ In this Report, Magistrate Judge Saporito recommended that (1) Walter Bradley's Petition for A Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed with prejudice, and (2) no certificate of appealability be issued.² No objections to this Report and Recommendation have since been filed.

1 ECF No. 16.

2 Id.

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 disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.⁴ Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, 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 Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.⁶

3 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).

4 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

5 Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).

6 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. --------

Following independent review of the record, I am satisfied that the Report and Recommendation contains no clear facial error. In the interests of judicial economy, I will not rehash Magistrate Judge Saporito's sound reasoning and legal citation. The Court is in full agreement that Walter Bradley's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is patently meritless and should be dismissed with prejudice.

AND NOW, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.'s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY;

2. Walter Bradley's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

3. No Certificate of Appealability shall issue; and

4. The Clerk of Courts is directed to close this case.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W . Brann

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge