IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
July 19, 2006
MICHAEL JOSEPH TYLER, PETITIONER
FRANK GILLIS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner
AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2006, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 26), to which no objections were filed, recommending that the petition (Doc. 1) for habeas corpusrelief be denied, and following an independent review of record, it appearing that petitioner has not demonstrated that the Parol Board used new criteria from the 1996 Amendment to the Pennsylvania Parole Act*fn1 in evaluating petitioner for release, or that the applicable criteria created a real risk of increasing the measure of petitioner's punishment, see Shaffer v. Meyers, 163 F. App'x 111, 113 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[A petitioner] must show not only that there has been a change in law or policy which has given retrospective effect[,] but also that its retrospective application to him created a real risk of increasing the measure of his punishment."); Brown v. Williams, No. 4:06-CV-0851, 2006 WL 1896166, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 7, 2006) (same); see also Mickens-Thomas v. Vaughn, 321 F.3d 374, 384 (3d Cir. 2003) (stating that, for ex post facto challenges, the petitioner must demonstrate that the law in question "disadvantages the offender affected by it"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 26) is ADOPTED.
2. The petition (Doc. 1) for habeas corpus relief is DENIED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge