The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM HAIGHT, No. 3:20-CV-00788
Petitioner, (Judge Brann)
v. (Magistrate Judge Mehalchick)
LAUREL HARRY, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
FEBRUARY 26, 2021
Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 14, 2020, 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 January 4, 2021 Chief Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, to whom
this matter is jointly assigned, issued a thorough report and recommendation
recommending that Petitioner’s motion to strike and dismiss be granted and the
petition be deemed withdrawn, so as to not expose Petitioner Haight to the
procedural bars of the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act, and so Petitioner
1 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B).
may “marshal in one § 2254 petition all of the arguments [he] ha[s] to collaterally
attack [his] convictions.”3
Petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation on January 13,
2021. 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.4 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.5 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.”6 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.7
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
3 Doc. 11 at 2 n. 1.
4 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Brown v. Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir.2011).
5 Rieder v. Apfel, 115 F.Supp.2d 496, 499 (M.D.Pa. 2000) (citing United States v. Raddatz, 447
U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
6 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)).
conducted a de novo review here and found no error. Petitioner’s objection is
unclear, and I find that avoiding the possibility of AEDPA procedural preclusion is
the correct result, as Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick concluded.
AND NOW, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Chief Magistrate Judge Mehalchick’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 11) is ADOPTED in full.
2. The motion to strike and dismiss is GRANTED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case file.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge