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

MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN : CIVIL ACTION Petitioner, pro se : : NO. 20-1156 v. : : PENNSYLVANIA FIRST JUDICIAL : DISTRICT (PROBATION), et al. : Defendants :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 19th day of April 2022, upon consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to

by Petitioner Michael McLaughlin, proceeding pro se, [ECF 2], and Respondents’ response in opposition to the petition, [ECF 14], and after a careful review of the Report and Recommendation submitted by United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey, [ECF 15], to which no objections were filed,1 it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED. 2. The petition for a writ for habeas corpus is DISMISSED, as moot. 3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. 4. 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

1 Petitioner was granted an extension to file objections, if any, by April 6, 2022. [ECF 17]. As of the date of this Order, Petitioner has not filed any objections, and the time to do so has expired. In the absence of any objections, the Report and Recommendation (“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). Here, after a thorough, independent review of the record and the R&R, this Court finds no error was committed by the Magistrate Judge and, therefore, approves and adopts the R&R in its entirety.