Johnson v. McGinley

Opinion

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

ARMONI MASUD JOHNSON, No. 3:21-CV-01280

Petitioner, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS MCGINLEY, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER JUNE 10, 2022 Armoni Masud Johnson, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition related to the denial of his request for parole.1 Johnson has also filed two motions for injunctive relief.2 In May 2022, Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny Johnson’s motions for injunctive relief, as his claims therein may not be raised in a § 2254 petition and, in any event, Johnson failed to demonstrate any of the requirements for injunctive relief.3 Johnson filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.4

1 Doc. 1. 2 Docs. 22, 24. 3 Doc. 32. “If a party objects timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must ‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report

or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”5 Regardless of whether timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.6 After reviewing the record, the Court finds no error in Chief

Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s conclusion that Johnson failed to demonstrate entitlement to injunctive relief. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 32) is ADOPTED; 2. Johnson’s motions for injunctive relief (Docs. 22, 24) are DENIED; and

3. This matter is REMANDED to Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for further proceedings.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann Chief United States District Judge

5 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).