Opinion
1:16-cv-910
04-06-2017
JOHN F. JACKSON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, FCI ALLENWOOD LOW, Respondent.
Hon. Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. ORDER
AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) of United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., recommending that we dismiss the Petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 2) without prejudice to his right to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the sentencing court, in the Western District of Virginia, subject to the preauthorization requirements of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244 and 2255(h), and noting that Petitioner has filed objections (Doc. 7), and the Court finding Judge Saporito's analysis to be thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the Court further finding Petitioner's objections to be without merit IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinksi v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires 'written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008). Although the standard of review is de novo, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) permits whatever reliance the district court, in the exercise of sound discretion, chooses to place on a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 674-75 (1980); see also Matthews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 275 (1976); Goney v. Clark, 749 F. 2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984).885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires 'written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008).
Petitioner's submission contains no arguments that cause us to depart from the Magistrate Judge's appropriate reasoning and correct conclusions. --------
1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Saporito (Doc. 6) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. The Petitioner's amended habeas petition (Doc. 2) is DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Petitioner filing a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion with the sentencing court.
3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the file on this case.
s/ John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge