# Nottingham v. PA Attorney General

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · August 31, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10409150

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 31, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10409150

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “district courts [must] review . . . objections de novo unless the objection is not timely or not specific” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations regardless of whether objections were filed

## Opinion text

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

JAMES E. NOTTINGHAM, No. 4:18-CV-02002

Petitioner, (Judge Brann)

v. (Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)

PA ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

ORDER
AUGUST 31, 2020
James E. Nottingham, a Pennsylvania state prisoner, filed this 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 petition seeking to vacate his convictions and sentences.1 In June 2020,
Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that this Court deny Nottingham’s petition on the ground that he
failed to exhaust his state court remedies.2 Magistrate Judge Mehalchick further
recommends denying as moot Nottingham’s remaining motions pending at that
time.3 Nottingham filed timely objections to the Report and Recommendation.4

1 Doc. 1.
2 Doc. 108.
3 Id.
Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, this Court will
review the recommendation only for clear error.5 Conversely, “[i]f a party objects

timely to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court must
‘make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.’”6 Regardless of whether

timely objections are made, district courts may accept, reject, or modify—in whole
or in part—the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.7
Nottingham’s objections are non-specific, and he does not challenge the basis
of Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s recommendation—that the petition be denied

because Nottingham failed to exhaust his state court remedies.8 Magistrate Judge
Mehalchick’s recommendations are therefore properly reviewed only for clear
error.9 Nevertheless, even reviewing the recommendations de novo, the Court finds

no error in Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s conclusions that Nottingham failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies as to any of the claims raised in his § 2254

5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878
(3d Cir. 1987) (explaining that court should in some manner review recommendations
regardless of whether objections were filed).
6 Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)).
7 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
8 See Doc. 110.
9 See Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (noting that “district courts [must]
review . . . objections de novo unless the objection is not timely or not specific” (internal
quotation marks omitted)).
petition and that his remaining motions are moot. Consequently, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that:

1. Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 108) is ADOPTED;
2. Nottingham’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition is DENIED;

3. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability;10
4. Nottingham’s motions for summary judgment (Doc. 76), for production
of forensic DNA testing (Doc. 78), for default judgment (Doc. 80), for
service of subpoenas (Doc. 89), to compel (Doc. 105), for summary

judgment (Doc. 106), to amend/correct (Doc. 111), for summary
judgment (Doc. 112), for summary judgment (Doc. 114), challenging
the service of legal documents (Doc. 115), and for release (Doc. 116),

are DENIED as moot; and
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

10 See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (setting forth legal standard).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10409150. Public record. Not legal advice.