Stephens v. Barr

M.D. Pennsylvania

Stephens v. Barr

DecidedApril 22, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-01573

StatusUnknown

This text of Stephens v. Barr (Stephens v. Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stephens v. Barr, (M.D. Pa. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NOEL RICARDO STEPHENS, : Civil No. 3:20-cv-1573 A#079-073-152, : : Petitioner, : : v. : : WILLIAM BARR, et al., : : Respondents. : Judge Sylvia H. Rambo O R D E R AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, upon consideration of the report and recommendation (Doc. 12) of Magistrate Judge Joseph Saporito, Jr., recommending the court dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) of pro se plaintiff Noel Stephens for failure to pay the filing fee or to file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis after the court placed Stephens on notice that failure to do so would result in dismissal of this action, (see Docs. 3 & 5), and it appearing that Stephens has not objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should “afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,” Henderson, 812 F.2d t 878; see also Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to “satisfy itself that there

is no clear error on the face of the record,” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following independent review of the record, the court being in full agreement with the recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear

error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The report and recommendation (Doc. 12) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED. 2. The petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned action. 4. Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

s/Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NOEL RICARDO STEPHENS, : Civil No. 3:20-cv-1573 A#079-073-152, : : Petitioner, : : v. : : WILLIAM BARR, et al., : : Respondents. : Judge Sylvia H. Rambo O R D E R AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, upon consideration of the report and recommendation (Doc. 12) of Magistrate Judge Joseph Saporito, Jr., recommending the court dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) of pro se plaintiff Noel Stephens for failure to pay the filing fee or to file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis after the court placed Stephens on notice that failure to do so would result in dismissal of this action, (see Docs. 3 & 5), and it appearing that Stephens has not objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should “afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report,” Henderson, 812 F.2d t 878; see also Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to “satisfy itself that there

is no clear error on the face of the record,” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following independent review of the record, the court being in full agreement with the recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear

error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The report and recommendation (Doc. 12) of Magistrate Judge Saporito is ADOPTED. 2. The petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned action. 4. Any appeal from this order is deemed to be frivolous and not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

s/Sylvia H. Rambo United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stephens v. Barr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stephens-v-barr-pamd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack