Patrick E. Gardinor v. George Miller, et al.

• Court: District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 4:21-cv-01794
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

PATRICK E. GARDINOR, No. 4:21-CV-01794

Petitioner, (Chief Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson)

GEORGE MILLER, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER OCTOBER 31, 2025 Patrick E. Gardinor, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition seeking to vacate his convictions and sentence.1 Gardinor raises several different claims that focus on allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and ineffective assistance of appellate and post-conviction relief counsel.2 In July 2025, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court deny the petition, as Gardinor’s claims are procedurally defaulted and/or without merit.3 After no timely objections were received, this Court adopted the Report and Recommendation.4 Gardinor later filed a motion to submit objections nunc pro tunc,

1 Doc. 1. 2 Id. 3 Doc. 20. which was granted.5 Gardinor thereafter filed belated objections to the Report and Recommendation.6

“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.’”7

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.8 After conducting a de novo review of the record, the Court again finds no error in Magistrate Judge Carlson’s conclusion that Gardinor’s claims are

procedurally defaulted and without merit. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court’s previous Order issued in this matter (Doc. 21) is

VACATED; 2. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20) is ADOPTED; 3. Gardinor’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED;

4. The Court declines to issue certificate of appealability;9 and

5 Docs. 22, 23. 6 Doc. 26. 7 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)). 8 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31. 9 See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (setting forth legal standard). 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

BY THE COURT:

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