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

ALLEN E. TRENT, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 24-1753 ) THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ) District Judge W. Scott Hardy STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; ) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly SUPERINTENDENT MICHAEL ) GOURLEY; and ) WESTMORELAND COUNTY DISTRICT ) ATTORNEY, ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) entered by Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on January 31, 2025. (Docket No. 6). In this case, pro se state prisoner Allen E. Trent filed a Petition under

for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”) wherein he does not attack his underlying state conviction or sentence but rather complains that various firearms owned by him, which apparently were seized during execution of a search warrant related to his state criminal case, were not returned to him. (Docket No. 4 at 5). Petitioner also complains that his counsel was ineffective for consenting to an order that the firearms be released to the victim’s family. (Id. at 6). Although Petitioner does not specify the relief he seeks from the Court, he presumably requests return of his confiscated firearms. The R&R correctly explains that Petitioner’s claims do not implicate the validity of his conviction or the length of his sentence, thus they are not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus petition. (Docket No. 6 at 2-3). Consequently, the R&R recommends that the Petition be dismissed, sua sponte, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. (Id. at 3). Service of the R&R was made on Petitioner by mail, and any objections were due by February 18, 2025. Thereafter, Petitioner did not file any objections to the R&R.

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge, and a district judge must conduct a de novo review of any part of the R&R that has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), (b)(3);

(b)(1). Given that Petitioner did not file any objections to the R&R, which explicitly states that “[f]ailure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal,” (Docket No. 6 at 4), this Court reviews the magistrate judge’s decision for plain error. See Tice v. Wilson,

(W.D. Pa. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).

In this case, upon careful review of the R&R and the Petition, and finding no plain error on the face of the record, the Court will accept Judge Kelly’s recommendation that the Petition be dismissed, sua sponte, because the claims raised therein are not cognizable in a federal habeas corpus petition. Therefore, the Court will adopt the R&R as the Opinion of the Court as set forth below. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the Court enters the following Order: AND NOW, this 24th day of November, 2025, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R, (Docket No. 6), is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. For the reasons set forth in the R&R, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Allen E. Trent’s Petition under

for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Docket No. 4), is DISMISSED without prejudice to him filing a civil lawsuit in the appropriate court if he wishes to do so. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED.

s/ W. Scott Hardy W. Scott Hardy United States District Judge

cc/ecf: Allen E. Trent (via U.S. Mail) QE0473 SCI Camp Hill P.O. Box 8837 2500 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17001