Opinion
CIVIL 1:20-CV-00562
07-25-2022
AARON HOPE, et al., Petitioners, v. CLAIR DOLL, et al., Respondents.
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson
ORDER
JENNIFER P. WILSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Before the court is the report and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed as moot. (Doc. 54.) Petitioners timely filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 84.) Respondents filed a brief in opposition to Defendant's objections. (Doc. Doc. 87.) Petitioners then filed a reply brief. (Doc. 91.) The objections and report and recommendation are ripe for review.
Petitioners' objections merely restate and reargue the issues that Judge Carlson already considered and rejected in the report and recommendation. Since mere disagreement with the report and recommendation is not a basis to decline to adopt the report and recommendation, the court construes Petitioners' objections as general objections.
When a party raises only general objections to a report and recommendation, a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the report and recommendation. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984). “To obtain de novo determination of a magistrate's findings by a district court, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) requires both timely and specific objections to the report.” Id. at 6. Thus, when reviewing general objections to a report and recommendation, the court's review is limited “to ascertaining whether there is ‘clear error' or ‘manifest injustice'” on the face of the record. Boomer v. Lewis, No. 3:06-CV-00850, 2009 WL 2900778, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2009).
The court has reviewed Judge Carlson's report and recommendation and finds no clear error or manifest injustice on the face of the record. Indeed, Judge Carlson's analysis thoroughly considers and addresses the arguments raised by Petitioners in their objections. The fact that Petitioners disagree with the outcome of this analysis is not a basis to decline to adopt the report and recommendation.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The report and recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Carlson, Doc. 54, is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. Petitioners' general objections, Doc. 84, are OVERRULED.
3. Petitioners' petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.