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

LEROY A. WILSON : CIVIL ACTION Petitioner pro-se : : NO. 19-5205 v. : : TERESA DELBALSO, et al., : Respondents :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 24th day of August 2021, upon consideration of Petitioner Leroy Wilson’s (“Petitioner”) pro-se petition for writ of habeas corpus, [ECF 1], and the Commonwealth’s response in opposition thereto, [ECF 10], and after a careful review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge David R. Strawbridge, [ECF 13], to which no objections were filed, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; 1 (2) Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, [ECF 1], is DENIED; (3) No probable cause exists to issue a certificate of appealability;2

1 On June 29, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed a well-reasoned Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the habeas petition be dismissed because all of Petitioner’s claims were either untimely, procedurally defaulted, or both. [ECF 13]. Petitioner, who is released on parole, was sent notice of the R&R on July 1, 2021. A review of the docket entries reveals that Petitioner has not filed any objections and the time to do so has expired. 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 Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted). After a thorough independent review of the record and the R&R, this Court finds that no error was committed by the Magistrate Judge, agrees with the recommendation, and, therefore, approves and adopts the R&R in its entirety.

2 A district court may issue a certificate of appealability only upon “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c). A petitioner must “demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); Lambert v. Blackwell,

(3d Cir. 2004). For the reasons set forth in the R&R, this Court concludes that no probable cause exists to issue such a certificate (4) Petitioner’s motion to appoint counsel, [ECF 12], is DENIED; and (5) The Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

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

in this action. Further, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, nor demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find this Court’s assessment “debatable or wrong.” Slack,

. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.