Pankotai v. Kovach

Full title: ANDREW WILLIAM PANKOTAI, Petitioner, v. WARDEN BRUCE KOVACH; PA ATTORNEY…

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

Date published: Feb 20, 2018

No. 4:17-CV-00991 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 20, 2018)

Opinion

No. 4:17-CV-00991

02-20-2018

ANDREW WILLIAM PANKOTAI, Petitioner, v. WARDEN BRUCE KOVACH; PA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

Judge Brann

() ORDER

Before the Court for disposition is a Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. on November 21, 2017.¹ In this Report, Magistrate Judge Saporito recommended that (1) this action be dismissed without prejudice due to Petitioner Andrew William Pankotai's failure to pay the requisite filing fee; and (3) the Clerk be directed to administratively close this case.² No objections to this Report and Recommendation have since been filed.

1 ECF No. 22.

2 Id.

Upon designation, a magistrate judge may "conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations."³ Once filed, this Report and Recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.⁴ Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the 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."⁵ Nevertheless, whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.⁶

3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

5 Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).

6 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

Following independent review of the record, I am satisfied that the Report and Recommendation contains no clear facial error. In the interests of judicial economy, I will not rehash Magistrate Judge Saporito's sound reasoning and legal citation. The Court is in full agreement that Andrew William Pankotai's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 should be dismissed for failure to pay the requisite filing fee.⁷

7 See Cotto v. Tennis, 369 F.App'x. 321 (3d Cir. 2010). --------

AND NOW, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.'s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY;

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the requisite filing fee;

3. The Clerk of Courts is directed to close this case.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W . Brann

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge