Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 06-cv-3566.
August 10, 2007
ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2007, upon careful and independent consideration of the pleadings and the record herein, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Peter B. Scuderi, and having received no objections thereto, it is ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is DISMISSED;
3. Petitioner's Request for Appointment of Counsel is DENIED; and
4. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability.
On July 12, 2007, after the Report and Recommendation had been issued, Petitioner sent a letter to the Court requesting appointment of counsel. Petitioner's first request for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice by Magistrate Judge Scuderi on the ground that Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for appointment of counsel only when an evidentiary hearing is warranted. Petitioner has not filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. "A party who files objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendations is obliged to file `specific' objections. . . . General or blanket objections do not comply with [the rules] and need not be addressed by the District Court." Palmer v. Apfel, 995 F. Supp. 549, 552 n. 4 (E.D. Pa. 1998); see also Frye v. Sullivan, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5305, at *3-4 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 1991) ("The court is not obliged to review those aspects of the United States Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection has not been asserted.").