IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA KEITH ROBERT SMITH : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiff, pro se : : NO. 22-3005 v. : : SECRETARY OF THE : DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTIONS, et al. : Respondents : O R D E R AND NOW, this 23rd day of February 2023, upon consideration of Petitioner Keith Robert Smith’s (“Petitioner”) pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, [ECF 1], and Respondents’ response in opposition, [ECF 16], and after a careful review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Scott W. Reid, [ECF 17], to which no objections were filed, 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 DENIED without an evidentiary hearing; 3. No probable cause exists to issue a certificate of appealability;2 and 1 On January 9, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed a well-reasoned Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the habeas petition be dismissed as untimely. [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 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. 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 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

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 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.