BOWMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE

E.D. Pennsylvania

BOWMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE

DecidedDecember 9, 2024

Docket2:23-cv-02092

StatusUnknown

This text of BOWMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE (BOWMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

BOWMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, (E.D. Pa. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ____________________________________

LOUIS BOWMAN, : Petitioner, : : v. : No. 2:23-cv-2092 : THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE : STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; : THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE : COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA; : and KATHY J. BRITTAIN; : Respondents. : ____________________________________

O R D E R AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2024, upon consideration of the petitions for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF Nos. 1, 8; the Answer to the habeas corpus petitions, ECF No. 15; the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells on October 21, 2024, ECF No. 19; and in the absence of objections;1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1 When neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report, under de novo or any other standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that it is better practice to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (1987). “When no objections are filed, the district court need only review the record for plain error or manifest injustice.” Harper v. Sullivan, No. 89-4272, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2168, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991). See also Hill v. Barnacle, No. 15-3815, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12370, at *16-17 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding that even when objections are filed, district courts “are not required to make any separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (explaining that in the absence of a timely objection, the court should review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The petitions for writ of habeas corpus, ECF Nos. 1 and 8, are DISMISSED. 3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr._________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ____________________________________

LOUIS BOWMAN, : Petitioner, : : v. : No. 2:23-cv-2092 : THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE : STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; : THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE : COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA; : and KATHY J. BRITTAIN; : Respondents. : ____________________________________

O R D E R AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2024, upon consideration of the petitions for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF Nos. 1, 8; the Answer to the habeas corpus petitions, ECF No. 15; the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells on October 21, 2024, ECF No. 19; and in the absence of objections;1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1 When neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court is not statutorily required to review the report, under de novo or any other standard. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Nevertheless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that it is better practice to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (1987). “When no objections are filed, the district court need only review the record for plain error or manifest injustice.” Harper v. Sullivan, No. 89-4272, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2168, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991). See also Hill v. Barnacle, No. 15-3815, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12370, at *16-17 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding that even when objections are filed, district courts “are not required to make any separate findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (explaining that in the absence of a timely objection, the court should review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The petitions for writ of habeas corpus, ECF Nos. 1 and 8, are DISMISSED. 3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr._________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

BOWMAN v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-pennsylvania-board-of-probation-and-parole-paed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack