From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Roth v. Reitz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 2, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-2085 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-2085

02-02-2012

DAVID ROBERT ROTH, Petitioner v. EARL F. REITZ, WARDEN, et al., Respondents


(Judge Conner)


ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2012, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt (Doc. 9), recommending that petitioner's habeas petition (Doc. 1) be dismissed without prejudice, and, following an independent review of the record, it appearing that neither party has objected to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record, see Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:

When parties fail to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Federal Magistrates Act does not require a district court to review the report before accepting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). As a matter of good practice, however, the Third Circuit expects courts to "afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report." Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). The advisory committee notes to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that "[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the court need only 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; see also Henderson, 812 F.2d at 878-79 (stating that "the failure of a party to object to a magistrate's legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right to de novo review in the district court"); Tice v. Wilson, 425 F. Supp. 2d 676, 680 (W.D. Pa. 2006) (holding that the court's review is conducted under the "plain error" standard); Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375-78 (M.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court's review is limited to ascertaining whether there is "clear error on the face of the record"); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (holding that the court will review the report and recommendation for "clear error"). The court has reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation in accordance with this Third Circuit directive.

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Blewitt (Doc. 9) are ADOPTED.
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice to re-file after petitioner exhausts his state court remedies with respect to his claims.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this matter.

________________

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Roth v. Reitz

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Feb 2, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-2085 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2012)
Case details for

Roth v. Reitz

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ROBERT ROTH, Petitioner v. EARL F. REITZ, WARDEN, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Feb 2, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-2085 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2012)

Citing Cases

Bennett v. Pennsylvania

The Court further finds that because Petitioner's AEDPA statute of limitations has been tolled while his…