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

ILUMINADO MARTINEZ, : Petitioner, : : v. : Civ. No. 25-0532 : SUPERINTENDENT MASON, et al., : Respondents. :

O R D E R On January 29, 2025, pro se state prisoner Iluminado Martinez sought habeas relief, alleging ineffective assistance of trial and PCRA counsel. (Doc. No. 2.)

. I referred his Petition to Magistrate Judge Reid, who recommended denying relief on the merits. (Doc. Nos. 6, 14.) 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,

, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (the district court must “afford some level of review” when no objections have been made). Having reviewed the Report, I see no clear errors and I agree with Judge Reid’s recommendation. * * * AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2025, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DENIED; 2. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 14) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED; and

3. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, there are no grounds on which to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED. _/s_/_ P_a_u_l_ S_._ D__ia_m__o_n_d______ Paul S. Diamond, J.