The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WILLIAM BENJAMIN BROWN, : Civil No. 1:21-CV-00774
:
Petitioner, :
:
v. :
: Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
:
WARDEN MACKENBURD, :
:
Respondent. : Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson
ORDER
Before the court is the report and recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson recommending that the petition for habeas
corpus filed by William Benjamin Brown be denied two grounds: (1) Petitioner’s
Rehaif claim fails as a matter of law; and (2) Petitioner’s actual innocence claims
fail on their merits. (Doc. 63.)
Brown timely filed objections to the report and recommendation. (Docs. 64,
65.) However, Brown’s objections merely restate and reargue the very issues that
Judge Carlson already considered and rejected in the report and recommendation.
(Id.) Since mere disagreement with the report and recommendation is not a basis
to decline to adopt the report and recommendation, the court construes Brown’s
objections as general objections.
When a party raises only general objections to a report and recommendation,
a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the report and
recommendation. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). “To obtain de
novo determination of a magistrate’s findings by a district court, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) requires both timely and specific objections to the report.” Id. at 6.
Thus, when reviewing general objections to a report and recommendation, the
court’s review is limited “to ascertaining whether there is ‘clear error’ or ‘manifest
injustice’” on the face of the record. Boomer v. Lewis, No. 3:06-CV-00850, 2009
WL 2900778, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2009).
The court has reviewed Judge Carlson’s report and recommendation and
finds no clear error or manifest injustice on the face of the record. Indeed, Judge
Carlson’s analysis thoroughly considers and addresses the arguments raised by
Brown in his objections. The fact that Brown disagrees with the outcome of this
analysis is not a basis to decline to adopt the report and recommendation.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1) The report and recommendation, Doc. 63, is ADOPTED in its
entirety.
2) Brown’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED.
3) The court finds no basis to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c).
4) The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Court Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: July 26, 2022