CHRISTOPHER CONNER, District Judge
AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2011, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion (Doc. 20), recommending that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be denied, and, following an independent review of the record and noting that plaintiff filed objections to the report on April 11, 2011 (Doc. 21), and the court finding Judge Mannion's analysis to be thorough and well-reasoned, and the court finding plaintiff's objections to be without merit and squarely addressed by Judge Mannion's report, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 20) are ADOPTED.
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
Where objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation are filed, the court must perform a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Supinski v. United Parcel Serv., Civ. A. No. 06-0793, 2009 WL 113796, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (citing Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). "In this regard, Local Rule of Court 72.3 requires `written objections which . . . specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for those objections.'" Id. (citing Shields v. Astrue, Civ. A. No. 07-417, 2008 WL 4186951, at *6 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2008)).
Comments