From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Shiloh v. Wilkes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 14, 2015
1:14-cv-860 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 14, 2015)

Opinion

1:14-cv-860

09-14-2015

LISA LEE SHILOH, Petitioner, v. JOYCE WILKES, et al., Respondents.


Hon. Karoline Mehalchick ORDER

AND NOW, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick (Doc. 29), recommending that Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that a certificate of appealability should not issue, and after an independent review of the record, and noting that Petitioner filed objections (Doc. 30) to the report on September 9, 2015 and the Court finding Judge Mehalchick's analysis to be extremely thorough, well-reasoned, and fully supported by the record, and the Court further finding Plaintiff's objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Mehalchick's report IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinksi v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires 'written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008).

Petitioner's objections to the R&R contain no arguments that cause us to part company with the Magistrate Judge's thoughtfully considered recommendations. As correctly noted by the Magistrate Judge, the claims asserted by Petitioner in her petition are either procedurally defaulted or entirely non-cognizable (i.e. ineffective assistance of PCRA counsel). Accordingly, the recommendation to deny and dismiss this petition is entirely appropriate and we adopt the Magistrate Judge's reasoning in whole by adopting her recommendations. --------

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick (Doc. 29) is ADOPTED in its entirety.

2. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE the file on this case.

s/ John E. Jones III

John E. Jones III

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Shiloh v. Wilkes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 14, 2015
1:14-cv-860 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 14, 2015)
Case details for

Shiloh v. Wilkes

Case Details

Full title:LISA LEE SHILOH, Petitioner, v. JOYCE WILKES, et al., Respondents.

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

Date published: Sep 14, 2015

Citations

1:14-cv-860 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 14, 2015)

Citing Cases

Pritchett v. Superintendent, SCI Laurel Highlands

Accord Johnson v. Warden of Broad River Correctional Inst., F. App'x —, 2013 WL 856731, at *1 (4th Cir.…

Deep v. Wingard

Somerset, PA 15501 Lenhart v. Rozum, CIV.A. 10-218J, 2014 WL 807995, at *16 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2014). Accord…