From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 9, 2019
Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-0027 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2019)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-0027

08-09-2019

RONALD GLENN HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. BARRY SMITH, Superintendent, PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pending before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Ronald Glenn Hamilton (ECF No. 3) and the Report and Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy recommending that the Petition be denied and that no certificate of appealability be issued. (ECF No. 10). Petitioner was served with the Report and Recommendation at his listed address and was advised that he had until July 26, 2019, to file written objections to the Report and Recommendation. To date, Plaintiff has not filed any objections.

If a party does not file timely objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the party may lose its right to de novo review by the district court, although the court must still give "reasoned consideration" to the magistrate judge's report before adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987). The district 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." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes. --------

The Court has reviewed the matter and concludes that the Report and Recommendation correctly analyzes the issues and makes a sound recommendation. Accordingly, after de novo review of the petition and documents in the case, together with the Report and Recommendation, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus will be denied.

An appropriate Order follows.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

Kim R. Gibson

Senior United States District Judge Dated: August 9, 2019 cc: RONALD GLENN HAMILTON

EC-1652

SCI Houtzdale

PO Box 1000

Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000

(via U.S. First Class Mail)

Morgan C. Davis

PA Board of Probation and Parole

(via ECF electronic notification)

ORDER

AND NOW, this 9th day of August, 2019, in accordance with the foregoing Memorandum Opinion issued on this date, it is hereby ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED.

Inasmuch as reasonable jurists would not find it debatable that Petitioner has failed to substantially allege the denial of a constitutional right, must less show such a denial, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.

The Report and Recommendation filed July 8, 2019 (ECF No. 10) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this case CLOSED.

AND IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Petitioner has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

BY THE COURT:

/s/_________

Kim R. Gibson

Senior United States District Judge cc: RONALD GLENN HAMILTON

EC-1652

SCI Houtzdale

PO Box 1000

Houtzdale, PA 16698-1000

(via U.S. First Class Mail)

Morgan C. Davis

PA Board of Probation and Parole

(via ECF electronic notification)


Summaries of

Hamilton v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Aug 9, 2019
Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-0027 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2019)
Case details for

Hamilton v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:RONALD GLENN HAMILTON, Petitioner, v. BARRY SMITH, Superintendent…

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

Date published: Aug 9, 2019

Citations

Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-0027 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 9, 2019)