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

LATIEF S. YOUNG,

Petitioner, Civil Action

v. No. 21-cv-2600

D.F. OBERLANDER,

Respondent.

ORDER AND NOW, this 25th day of May, 2023, upon consideration of a Report and Recommendation that Petitioner Latief Young’s Petitioner for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied (ECF No. 30), to which no objection was filed,1 it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 30) is ADOPTED. 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. There is no basis to issue a certificate of appealability. 3. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed. BY THE COURT: /s/ Mitchell S. Goldberg MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.

1 On January 27, 2023, Young requested an extension until February 7, 2023 to file objections, which was granted, but Young did not file objections. Although a district judge is only required to review “those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,”

(b)(1), I have reviewed the Report and Recommendation and determined it to be correct. See Henderson v. Carlson,

(3d Cir. 1987).