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

JAMES DUKES : CIVIL ACTION Petitioner, pro se : : NO. 18-0383 v. : : TAMMY FERGUSON, et al. : Respondents :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 30th day of June 2021, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Henry S. Perkin, [ECF 21], to which no objections were filed by Petitioner James Dukes (“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 a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, with prejudice, without an evidentiary hearing; (3) There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability; and (4) The Clerk of Court shall mark this matter CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

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

1 On March 31, 2021, Magistrate Judge Perkin issued a well-reasoned thirty-one page Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), in which he recommends that the pro se Petitioner’s writ of habeas corpus petition asserting various claims for insufficiency of evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct, be denied. [ECF 21]. Despite the expiration of time to file objections, Petitioner has not filed any objections to the R&R. 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, an 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