JODY-ANNY CAMPBELL v. JESSICA KEITH

E.D. Pennsylvania

JODY-ANNY CAMPBELL v. JESSICA KEITH

DecidedApril 7, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-05288

StatusUnknown

This text of JODY-ANNY CAMPBELL v. JESSICA KEITH (JODY-ANNY CAMPBELL v. JESSICA KEITH) 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

JODY-ANNY CAMPBELL v. JESSICA KEITH, (E.D. Pa. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: : : JODY-ANN CAMPBELL : No. 2:24-cv-5288 : : ____________________________________

O R D E R AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2025, upon consideration of the pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1; Petitioner’s Letter in support thereof, ECF Nos. 5, 7; the amended Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 8; the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski on February 12, 2025, ECF No. 13; and in the absence of objections;1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 13, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The petitions for writ of habeas corpus, ECF Nos. 1 and 8, are DISMISSED.

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 WL 24908, at *1 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 1991). See also Hill v. Barnacle, 655 F. App'x 142, 148 (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). 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

IN RE: : : JODY-ANN CAMPBELL : No. 2:24-cv-5288 : : ____________________________________

O R D E R AND NOW, this 7th day of April, 2025, upon consideration of the pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 1; Petitioner’s Letter in support thereof, ECF Nos. 5, 7; the amended Habeas Corpus Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 8; the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Lynne A. Sitarski on February 12, 2025, ECF No. 13; and in the absence of objections;1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 13, is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The petitions for writ of habeas corpus, ECF Nos. 1 and 8, are DISMISSED.

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 WL 24908, at *1 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 25, 1991). See also Hill v. Barnacle, 655 F. App'x 142, 148 (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). 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)

JODY-ANNY CAMPBELL v. JESSICA KEITH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jody-anny-campbell-v-jessica-keith-paed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack