Kline v. SCI Muncy Department of Corrections

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Kline v. SCI Muncy Department of Corrections

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA AMALIA CRINA KLINE, : Petitioner, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-2560 V. : STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION : MUNCY DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTIONS and THE ATTORNEY : GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH : OF PENNSYLVANIA, : Respondents. : ORDER AND NOW, this 3rd day of September, 2020, after considering the petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2254

for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the pro se petitioner, Amalia Crina Kline (Doc. No. 1), the response in opposition to the petition filed by the respondents (Doc. No. 15), and United States Magistrate Judge Linda K. Caracappa’s report and recommendations (Doc. No. 16), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to REMOVE this action from civil suspense and RETURN it to the court’s active docket; 2. The Honorable Linda K. Caracappa’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; ' 3. The petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED;

' Since neither party filed objections to Judge Caracappa’s report and recommendation, the court need not review the report before adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson,

812 F.2d 874, 878

(3d Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, “the better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” /d. As such, the court will review the report for plain error. See Oldrati v. Apfel,

33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399

(E.D. Pa. 1998) (“In the absence of a timely objection, . . . this Court will review [the magistrate judge’s] Report and Recommendation for clear error.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The 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). The court has reviewed Judge Caracappa’s report for plain error and has found none.

4. The petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and is therefore not entitled to a certificate of appealability,

28 U.S.C. § 2253

(c)(2); and 5. The clerk of court shall mark this case as CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Edward G. Smith EDWARD G. SMITH, J.

Reference

Status
Unknown