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

ANDREW WILLIAM PANKOTAI, No. 3:21-CV-00034

Movant, (Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Saporito)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

ORDER MARCH 9, 2021 Plaintiff filed the instant action on January 8, 2021, and it was jointly assigned to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge. Upon designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations.”1 Once filed, this report and recommendation is disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.2 On February 1, 2021 Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., to whom this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation recommending that the motion for compassionate release be denied because he is

1

(b)(1)(B). in state custody pursuant to a state court judgment and

(c)(1)(A) applies only to federal prisoners.3

No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed. For portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, the Court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”4 Regardless of

whether timely objections are made by a party, the District Court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.5

Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but will instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. I have conducted a de novo review here and found no error.

AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Magistrate Judge Saporito’s Report and Recommendation, (Doc. 7) is ADOPTED in full. 2. The motion for compassionate release is denied.

3 See, e.g., Phelps v. Superintendent, Gouverneur Correctional Facility,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2020). 4 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern., Inc.,

(M.D. Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson,

(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and recommendation)). 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case file. BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann Matthew W. Brann United States District Judge