Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-CV-04065.
September 29, 2004
ORDER
NOW, this 29th day of September, 2004, upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by petitioner pro se in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 10, 2003; upon consideration of the pro se Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed November 17, 2003; upon consideration of Respondents' Answer and Memorandum in Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which response was filed December 26, 2003; upon consideration of petitioner's Traverse filed January 23, 2004; upon consideration of Respondents' Reply to Traverse, which reply was filed February 2, 2004; upon consideration of Petitioner's Motion Pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 6, filed November 17, 2003; upon consideration of Respondents' Answer to Petitioner's Motion for Discovery under Writ of Habeas Corpus Rule 6, filed December 26, 2003; upon consideration of the Attorney General's and the District Attorney of Lehigh County's Motion to Remove the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and the District Attorney of Lehigh County as Parties Respondent (docket entry number 22) and the supporting memorandum which motion and memorandum were filed February 2, 2004; upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Diane M. Welsh, filed May 25, 2004; upon consideration of the Petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendation, which objections were filed June 16, 2004; upon consideration of Respondents' Response to Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which response was filed June 28, 2004; upon Consideration of Petitioner's Reply to Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendation, which reply was filed on July 28, 2004; it appearing that petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Welsh's Report and Recommendation are a restatement of the issues raised in his underlying petition for habeas corpus relief and are without merit; it further appearing after de novo review of this matter that Magistrate Judge Welsh's Report and Recommendation correctly determined the legal and factual issues presented in the petition for habeas corpus relief,
Petitioner filed an identical Reply to Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendation on July 30, 2004.
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Welsh's Report and Recommendation is affirmed, approved and adopted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Welsh's Report and Recommendation are overruled. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Attorney General's and the District Attorney of Lehigh County's Motion to Remove the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and the District Attorney of Lehigh County as Parties Respondent (docket entry number 22) is granted.
When objections are filed to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, we are required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 72.1(IV)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, District Judges have wide latitude regarding how they treat recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424 (1980). Indeed, by providing for a de novo determination, rather than a de novo hearing, Congress intended to permit a District Judge, in the exercise of the court's sound discretion, the option of placing whatever reliance the court chooses to place on the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and conclusions. We may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part any of the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Raddatz, supra.
As noted above, we conclude that petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Welsh's Report and Recommendation restate the underlying claims contained in his petition for habeas corpus before Magistrate Judge Welsh. Moreover, upon review of the Report and Recommendation, together with de novo review of this matter, we conclude that the Report and Recommendation correctly determines the legal issues raised by petitioner.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the District Attorney of the County of Lehigh and the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are each dismissed as Respondents in this matter.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed July 10, 2003, and the pro se Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed November 17, 2003, are each denied without a hearing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion Pursuant to Habeas Corpus Rule 6 (document entry number 7) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner fails to demonstrate denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this matter dismissed.