IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA PEDRO COLON, : Petitioner, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-3475 V. : TAMMY FERGUSON, THE DISTRICT : ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF : LEHIGH, and THE ATTORNEY : GENERAL OF THE STATE OF : PENNSYLVANIA, : Respondents. : ORDER AND NOW, this 2nd day of September, 2020, after considering the petition under

for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the pro se petitioner, Pedro Colon (Doc. No. 2), the response in opposition to the petition filed by the respondents (Doc. No. 11), and United States Magistrate Judge Richard A. Lloret’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 Richard A. Lloret’s report and recommendations (Doc. No. 16) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; '

' The court notes that Judge Lloret filed his report and recommendations on June 17, 2020. Due to the clerk’s office operating almost entirely remotely during until close to the end of June, the clerk’s office did not mail the report and recommendations to the petitioner until June 29, 2020. See Unnumbered Docket Entry After Doc. No. 16. Giving the petitioner the additional three days under Rule 6(d) to file objections to the report and recommendations, he had until July 16, 2020, to timely file objections. The court waited more than a month to see if the petitioner filed objections, and he has not done so. Since neither party filed objections to Judge Lloret’s report and recommendation, the court need not review the report before adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson,

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

(E.D. Pa. 1998) (“In the

3. The petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED; 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,

(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.

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.”

(b)(1)(C). The court has reviewed Judge Lloret’s report for plain error and has found none.