From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Alonso v. Lowe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Oct 3, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1068 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1068

10-03-2017

GUERRERO SILVESTRE ALONSO, Petitioner v. CRAIG LOWE, et al., Respondents


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2017, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 7) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending the court deny the petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner Guerrero Silvestre Alonso ("Alonso"), and it appearing that no party has objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should "afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report," Henderson, 812 F.2d 878; see also Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Carlson's recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

The magistrate judge's report (Doc. 7) issued July 27, 2017, before Alonso's reply brief deadline of July 28, 2017 had expired. (See Doc. 4). Alonso timely filed his reply on July 28, 2017. (Doc. 8). In reviewing the magistrate judge's report, we have considered Alonso's reply arguments and conclude that same are inapposite. --------

1. The report (Doc. 7) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2. Alonso's petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Alonso v. Lowe

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Oct 3, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1068 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2017)
Case details for

Alonso v. Lowe

Case Details

Full title:GUERRERO SILVESTRE ALONSO, Petitioner v. CRAIG LOWE, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Oct 3, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-1068 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2017)

Citing Cases

United States v. Crowder

backdrop of a statutory immigration system which often called for mandatory detention of classes of aliens…