Opinion
Civil Action 21-4861
10-27-2022
TODD ATKINSON Petitioner, pro se v. SUPERINTENDENT SCI FOREST, et al. Respondents
ORDER
NITZA I. QUINONES ALEJANDRO JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
AND NOW, this 26th day of October 2022, upon careful consideration of the pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (the “Petition”), filed by Petitioner Todd Atkinson, (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, [ECF 1], the response filed by Respondents, [ECF 20], the Report and Recommendation issued on August 9, 2022, by the Honorable Scott W. Reid, United States Magistrate Judge (the “Magistrate Judge”), which recommended that the Petition be denied, [ECF 25], Petitioner's pro se objections to the Report and Recommendation, [ECF 26], the pleadings, and the available state court record, and after conducting an independent de novo review of the objections, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation, [ECF 25], is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. The objections, [ECF 26], are without merit and are OVERRULED;3. Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, [ECF 1], is DENIED; and
In 2016, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of six counts of possessing child pornography and one count of criminal use of a communication facility. He was later sentenced to 25 to 50 years of incarceration on each count, to be served concurrently. The sentence was a mandatory minimum sentence because Petitioner had a prior conviction for a sex offense against a minor. On November 1, 2021, Petitioner filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, [ECF 1], which was referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation. In the Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”), the Magistrate Judge aptly summarized Petitioner's habeas corpus claims for relief as follows: (1) his sentence of 25 to 50 years of incarceration is illegal under Alleyne and Apprendi; (2) he is entitled to relief under Muniz; (3) the PCRA court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing; (4) the sentence imposed was “due to Judge based facts and not found by a jury” in violation of Alleyne and Apprendi; (5) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to his sentence under Alleyne and Apprendi; (6) he is entitled to a “reduction of sentence” under Muniz “as offense grading has been downgraded”; (7) he is entitled to resentencing “due to the Sixth Amendment violation and unconstitutional sentencing statute”; and (8) a second claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to his “illegal sentence” under Alleyne and Apprendi. [ECF 25]. The Magistrate Judge addressed each of these claims and found that each one either lacked merit or was non-cognizable and recommended that the Petition be denied. Petitioner has now filed objections to the R&R. [ECF 26]. When a party files timely objections to an R&R, a court must conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of the R&R. See Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984). In conducting its de novo review, the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Although the review is de novo, the statute permits the court to rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675-76 (1980); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7. In his timely objections to the R&R, Petitioner merely lists the claims he made in his Petition and provides no argument as to how the Magistrate Judge erred in his conclusions. [ECF 26]. Nevertheless, this Court has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and finds that the Magistrate Judge carefully considered each of Petitioner's claims and arguments and correctly concluded that each claim was either without merit or non-cognizable. This Court further finds no error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis of Petitioner's claims. Accordingly, the R&R is adopted and approved, Petitioner's objections are overruled, and the Petition is dismissed.
4. No probable cause exists to issue a certificate of appealability.
A district court may issue a certificate of appealability only upon “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A petitioner must “demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 230 (3d Cir. 2004). For the reasons set forth above, this Court concludes that no probable cause exists to issue such a certificate in this action because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right. Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find this Court's assessment “debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Accordingly, there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED.