The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PAUL NELSON HANSEN, No. 4:16-CV-02223
Petitioner, (Judge Brann)
v. (Magistrate Judge Carlson)
MICHAEL CLARK,
PA ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents.
ORDER
AUGUST 12, 2019
Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 3,
2016, and it was jointly assigned to the undersigned and to a magistrate judge.
Upon designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including evidentiary
hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and
recommendations.”1 Once filed, this report and recommendation is disseminated
to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written objections.2
On July 15, 2019, Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson to whom this matter
is jointly assigned, issued a thorough and well-written report and recommendation
1 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
2 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1).
recommending that the petition be dismissed and no certificate of appealability
issue.
Petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation on August 2,
2019. When objections are timely filed, the District Court must conduct a de novo
review of those portions of the report to which objections are made.3 Although the
standard of review for objections is de novo, the extent of review lies within the
discretion of the District Court, and the Court may otherwise rely on the
recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent that it deems proper.4 For
portions of the report and recommendation to which no objection is made, the
Court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”5 Regardless of
whether timely objections are made by a party, the District Court may accept, not
accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by
the magistrate judge.6
3 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir.2011).
4 Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
5 Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Intern.,
Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa.2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878
(3d Cir.1987) (explaining that judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)).
6 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
Because I write solely for the parties, I will not restate the facts, but will
instead adopt the recitation of facts as set forth by the magistrate judge. I have
conducted a de novo review here and found no error. Although the Petitioner has
advanced cogent arguments, they are legally unavailing. The recommendation of
the magistrate judge was correct, and will be adopted.
AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson’s July 15, 2019 Report and
Recommendation, ECF No. 48, is ADOPTED in full.
2. Petitioner Paul Nelson Hansen’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus,
November 3, 2016, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED.
3. Petitioner’s pending motions to appoint counsel, ECF Nos. 51 and 53,
are DENIED.
4. No certificate of appealability shall issue.
5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge