“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
How later courts described this case
- “It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MARTIN BROWN, : CIVIL ACTION
: NO. 22-1538
Petitioner, :
:
v. :
:
K. BRITTAIN, et al. :
:
Respondents. :
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 29th day of June, 2022, upon consideration
of Petitioner’s submissions, the record, and the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Lynne A. Sitarski (ECF
No. 7), there being no objections,1 it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is
1 When neither party files timely objections to a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”) on a
dispositive issue, the district court is not required to review
the R&R before adopting it. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require
district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal
conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither
party objects to those findings.”). However, the Third Circuit has
held that “in the absence of objections . . . the better practice
is for the district judge to afford some level of review to
dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987); see also Fed R. Civ. P.
72, 1983 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 that neither party has filed objections to
the R&R, this Court has reviewed it for clear error and has found
none.
APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. Plaintiff’s petition for habeas corpus filed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; and
3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate
of appealability.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Eduardo C. Robreno
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.