FOWLER v. GREY

• Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-04306
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TANYA L. FOWLER, Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-4306 v.

DAINE GREY, et. al., Respondent.

ORDER AND NOW, this 8th day of May 2025, upon consideration of Tanya Fowler’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 1), and the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey, (ECF No. 13), to which Fowler did not object, it is ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;1

2. Fowler’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED;

3. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT issue, in that the Fowler has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor demonstrated that reasonable jurists would debate the correctness of the

1 Tanya Fowler challenges the decision by the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services to take her granddaughter, Victoria Jacquet, into protective custody. See (Pet. at 1–2, ECF No. 1). Jacquet was placed into a foster home, and Fowler has since been “denied about 10 Motions and Petitions for her return to [Fowler’s] Lawful Custody.” (Id. at 4.) On March 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey recommended that Fowler’s petition be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (R&R at 4, ECF No. 13.) Fowler did not file objections. When no objections are made to an R&R, a district court need not “determine de novo whether a magistrate judge erred” in denying such claims. Medina v. DiGuglielmo, 461 F.3d 417, 426 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Gov. § 2254 Cases 8(b)). However, as a matter of good practice, courts generally review unobjected-to claims for clear error. See, e.g., Harris v. Mahally, No. 14- 2879, 2016 WL 4440337, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 22, 2016); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998). Judge Hey’s recommendation is not clearly erroneous, as “federal habeas has never been available to challenge parental rights or child custody.” Lehman v. Lycoming Cty. Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502, 512 (1982). procedural aspects of this decision. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); and

4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gerald J. Pappert Gerald J. Pappert, J.