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

THOMAS P. CONNELLY, JR., CIVIL ACTION

Petitioner,

v. NO. 24-CV-0145-KSM

WARDEN, BERKS COUNTY JAIL

Respondent.

ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2024, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and after review of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey (Doc. No. 12), IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED; 2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED AS MOOT;1 3. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of this Court’s procedural ruling. See Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000); and 4. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case closed for statistical purposes. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Karen Spencer Marston ______________________________ KAREN SPENCER MARSTON, J.

1 In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Local Rule 72.1.IV(b) governs a petitioner’s objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.” Piasecki v. Ct. of Common Pleas, No. 14-cv-7004,

, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 23, 2021). Under that Rule, a petitioner must “specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections” within fourteen days of receipt of a copy thereof.

Here, upon notice of Petitioner’s letter dated May 13, 2024 seeking to file objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court granted the request to file objections nunc pro tunc no later than May 30, 2024. (Doc. No. 15.) Petitioner acknowledged receipt of this order. (Doc. No. 17.) As of the date of this Order, Petitioner has failed to file any objections.