Opinion
Civil Action 22-3450
05-04-2023
CHRISTOPHER WEIKERT Petitioner v. DAVID PECHISHEN, et al. Respondents
ORDER
NITZA I. QUINONES ALEJANDRO Judge.
AND NOW, this 4th day of May 2023, upon consideration of Petitioner Christopher Weikert's (“Petitioner”) pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [ECF 1], and Respondents' response in opposition, [ECF 7], and after a careful review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge David Strawbridge, [ECF 8], to which no objections were filed,is hereby ORDERED that:
Petitioner filed a habeas petition challenging his pretrial detention and seeking an immediate discharge from his detention and the dismissal of charges with prejudice. On March 9, 2023, the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) was issued, recommending that the habeas petition be dismissed, as moot, by virtue of Petitioner's subsequent conviction. [ECF 8]. Thereafter, Petitioner did not file any objections. This Court sua sponte extended Petitioner's time to respond because it appeared he had been moved to a different facility. Notwithstanding this extension, Petitioner has yet to file any objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. In the absence of any objections, the R&R is reviewed under the “plain error” standard. See Facyson v. Barnhart, 2003 WL 22436274, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2003). Under this plain error standard of review, an R&R should only be rejected if the court finds that the magistrate judge committed an error that was “(1) clear or obvious, (2) affect[ed] ‘substantial rights,' and (3) seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Leyva v. Williams, 504 F.3d 357, 363 (3d Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, after a thorough independent review of the record and the R&R, this Court finds that no error was committed by the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, this Court approves and adopts the R&R in its entirety.
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;
2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, with prejudice, without an evidentiary hearing; and
3. Petitioner has neither shown denial of a federal constitutional right nor established that reasonable jurists would disagree with this Court's procedural disposition of his claims. Consequently, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this matter CLOSED.