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

DANIEL TUCKER, : Petitioner, : : v. : CIVIL NO. 22-1961 : SUPT, SCI, et al., : Respondents. : O R D E R In May 2022, pro se state prisoner Daniel Tucker sought habeas relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. (Doc. No. 1 at 9; Doc. No. 23 at 1, 3);

. In June 2022, I referred his Petition to Magistrate Judge Wells for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 7.) In March 2023, Judge Wells recommended that I deny relief without an evidentiary hearing because his claims lack merit. (Doc. No. 23 at 9-10 (“[A] certificate of appealability should not issue . . . .”).) No objections to the Report and Recommendation have been made. (See Docket.) Accordingly, I must “satisfy [myself] that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) Advisory Committee Notes; see also Henderson v. Carlson,

(3d Cir. 1987). Having reviewed the Report, I see no clear errors and I agree with Judge Wells’s Recommendation. * * * AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2023, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED without an evidentiary hearing; 2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 23) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; and 3. A certificate of appealability will not issue. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Paul S. Diamond Paul S. Diamond, J.