From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodham v. Varano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 18, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-2095 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 18, 2012)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-2095

09-18-2012

JAMES C. WOODHAM, Petitioner v. DAVID VARANO, et al., Respondents


(Judge Conner)


ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2012, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser (Doc. 17), recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be denied, and, following an independent review of the record and noting that petitioner filed objectionsto the report on April 26, 2012 (Doc. 20), and the court finding Judge Smyser's analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding petitioner's objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Smyser's Report (Doc. 17), 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. 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)).

1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Smyser (Doc. 17) are ADOPTED.
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

______________

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Woodham v. Varano

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Sep 18, 2012
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-2095 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 18, 2012)
Case details for

Woodham v. Varano

Case Details

Full title:JAMES C. WOODHAM, Petitioner v. DAVID VARANO, et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Sep 18, 2012

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:11-CV-2095 (M.D. Pa. Sep. 18, 2012)