Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-024.
May 23, 2011
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 10), recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied, and, following an independent review of the record and noting that petitioner filed objections to the report on May 5, 2011 (Doc. 11), and the court finding Judge Carlson's analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding petitioner's objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Carlson's report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 10) are ADOPTED.
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
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. Supinski 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)).