explaining that in the absence of a timely objection, the court should review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error
How later courts described this case
- explaining that in the absence of a timely objection, the court should review the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
____________________________________
LOUIS BOWMAN, :
Petitioner, :
:
v. : No. 2:23-cv-2092
:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE :
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; :
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE :
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA; :
and KATHY J. BRITTAIN; :
Respondents. :
____________________________________
O R D E R
AND NOW, this 9th day of December, 2024, upon consideration of the petitions for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, ECF Nos. 1, 8; the Answer to the habeas corpus
petitions, ECF No. 15; the Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Carol
Sandra Moore Wells on October 21, 2024, ECF No. 19; and in the absence of objections;1 IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1 When neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the
district court is not statutorily required to review the report, under de novo or any other standard.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985). Nevertheless, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that it is better practice to afford some
level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d
874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987), writ denied 484 U.S. 837 (1987). “When no objections are filed, the
district court need only review the record for plain error or manifest injustice.” Harper v.
Sullivan, No. 89-4272, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2168, at *2 n.3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 1991). See also
Hill v. Barnacle, No. 15-3815, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12370, at *16-17 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding
that even when objections are filed, district courts “are not required to make any separate
findings or conclusions when reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation de novo under 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)”); Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (explaining that in
the absence of a timely objection, the court should review the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation for clear error). The district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
1. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 19, is APPROVED and
ADOPTED.
2. The petitions for writ of habeas corpus, ECF Nos. 1 and 8, are DISMISSED.
3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
4. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr._________
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge