Opinion
21-cr-16
12-11-2023
MEMORANDUM ORDER
KIM R. GIBSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto (the "Magistrate Judge") in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 636.
On July 27,2023, Defendant Darren Alston ("Alston") submitted a "Motion for Production of Documents[,]" ln which he seeks free copies of the following documents in the above-captioned case: the docket sheet, his plea agreement, and the sentencing transcript. (ECF No. 1345).
On August 14, 2023, the Magistrate Judge submitted a Report and Recommendation, in which he recommended that the Court deny Alston's Motion. (ECF No. 1354 at 1). The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny Alston's Motion because: (1) it violates the rule against hybrid representation, (2) there is no local rule "that gives Alston free copies of anything, much less free copies of the open-ended 'needed documents' that Alston claims to need[,]" and (3) there is no substance to the Motion. (Id. at 1-3). Finally, the Magistrate Judge noted that the parties could file written objections to his Report and Recommendation within fourteen days, and that, in the "absence of timely and specific objections, any appeal would be severely hampered or entirely defaulted." (Id. at 3).
The Court has not received objections from Alston, and the timeframe for filing objections has passed.
Therefore, upon review of the Record and the Report and Recommendation under the applicable "reasoned consideration" standard, see EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99100 (3d Cir. 2017) (stating the standard of review when no timely objections are filed), the Court will accept in whole the conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in this matter.
The Court also notes that, approximately two and a half months after Alston filed his Motion, a copy of the transcript from his sentencing was placed on the docket. (ECF No. 1390).
Accordingly, the following Order is entered:
AND NOW, this 11th day of December, 2023, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Darren Alston's "Motion for Production of Documents[,]" (ECF No. 1345), is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 1354.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation at ECF No. 1354 is adopted for its reasoning and conclusions.