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

KENNIETH CAIBY : CIVIL ACTION Petitioner : : NO. 24-1969 v. : : COMMONWEALTH : PHILADELPHIA, : Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 25th day of April 2025, upon consideration of pro se Petitioner Kennieth Caiby’s (“Petitioner”) amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, (“Petition”), [ECF 19], Petitioner’s amended complaint, [ECF 14], and the Commonwealth’s (“Respondent”) response in opposition, [ECF 20], and after a careful review of the Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Carol Sandra Moore Wells, [ECF 21], 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 of habeas corpus is DISMISSED, with prejudice, without an evidentiary hearing; and

1 On March 11, 2025, the Magistrate Judge filed a well-reasoned Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), finding that Petitioner’s claims are time-barred and recommending that the habeas petition be dismissed. [ECF 21]. 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 that the Magistrate Judge committed no error and, therefore, approves and adopts the R&R in its entirety. 3. No probable cause exists to issue a certificate of appealability;2 and 4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this matter CLOSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Nitza I. Quiñones Alejandro NITZA I. QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO Judge, United States District Court

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 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.