# Thomas v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · April 13, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10411603

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 13, 2022
- **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/10411603

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for clear error

## Opinion text

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

ROBERT HARRY THOMAS, : Civil No. 1:21-cv-1877
:
Petitioner, :
:
v. :
:
PENNSYLVANIA PAROLE BOARD :
and LAUREL HARRY, :
:
Respondent. : Judge Sylvia H. Rambo

O R D E R
Before the court is Magistrate Judge Carlson’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 10), which recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)
be denied and that no certificate of appealability shall issue. No objections have been
filed to the report.
In considering whether to adopt a report and recommendation when no
objections have been filed, 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.” 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)
(explaining that judges should review dispositive legal issues raised by the report for
clear error). Following an independent review of the record and upon a careful
review of the report and recommendation, the court is satisfied that the report and
recommendation contains no clear error and will therefore adopt the
recommendation. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 10) is ADOPTED;

2) The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED;

3) A certificate of appealability shall not issue as Petitioner has not demonstrated
“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); and

4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

s/Sylvia H. Rambo
Sylvia H. Rambo
United States District Judge

Dated: April 13, 2022

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10411603. Public record. Not legal advice.