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

ANTHONY MORALES-CASTRO : CIVIL ACTION Petitioner : : NO. 20-5111 v. : : BERNADETTE MASON, et al., : Respondents :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of January 2021, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation issued on December 30, 2020, by the Honorable Timothy R. Rice, United States Magistrate Judge (the “Magistrate Judge”), [ECF 8], to which no objections were filed by Petitioner, and after a careful and independent review of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;1 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, with prejudice; 3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability; and 4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro NITZA I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO Judge, United States District Court

1 The R&R recommends that Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition be denied because Petitioner failed to provide an accurate address and to name the proper respondent. [ECF 8]. Petitioner has not file any objections and/or response to the R&R, nor has he corrected the deficiencies despite an Order to do so. See [ECF 6].

In the absence of any objections, the R&R is reviewed under the “plain error” standard. See Facyson v. Barnhart,

, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 30, 2003). Under this plain error standard of review, the R&R should only be rejected if the magistrate judge commits an error that was “(1) clear or obvious, (2) affect[ed] substantial rights, and (3) seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Leyva v. Williams,

(3d Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Here, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not commit any error