VOID v. SMITH ( 2020 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RONALD VOID, : Petitioner, : CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-4913 Vv. : BARRY SMITH and THE ATTORNEY : GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PA, : Respondents. : ORDER AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2020, after considering (1) the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by the pro se petitioner, Ronald Void (Doc. No. 1), (2) the respondents’ response in opposition to the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 12), and (3) United States Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 13), it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 1. The clerk of court is DIRECTED to REMOVE this action from civil suspense and RETURN it to the court’s active docket; 2. The Honorable Thomas J. Rueter’s report and recommendation (Doc. No. 13) is APPROVED and ADOPTED; | 3. The petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without an evidentiary hearing; ' Since neither party filed objections to Judge Rueter’s report and recommendation, the court need not review the report before adopting it. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987). Nonetheless, “the better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report.” /d. As such, the court will review the report for plain error. See Oldrati v. Apfel, 33 F. Supp. 2d 397, 399 (E.D. Pa. 1998) (“In the absence of a timely objection, . . . this Court will review [the magistrate judge’s] Report and Recommendation for clear error.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The 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). Here, the court has reviewed Judge Rueter’s report for plain error and has found none. 4. The petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and is therefore not entitled to a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and 5. The clerk of court shall mark this case as CLOSED. BY THE COURT: /s/ Edward G. Smith EDWARD G. SMITH, J.