The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Jones
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MEMORANDUM IS AS FOLLOWS
Pending before this Court is a Report (doc. 8), issued by Magistrate Judge J. Andrew Smyser ("the Magistrate Judge" or "Magistrate Judge Smyser") on April 17, 2007, which recommends that pro se Petitioner Esau Moore, III's ("Petitioner" or "Moore") Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("the Petition") (doc. 1), filed on December 26, 2006, be dismissed.*fn1 For the reasons that follow, we will adopt Magistrate Judge Smyser's Report in its entirety.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Our review of the record confirms the Magistrate Judge's description of Petitioner's allegations as to the relevant facts underlying the instant action and the relief requested. (See Rec. Docs. 1, 6, 8). Accordingly, we summarize the allegations and relief requested only briefly here.
On March 30, 2006, Petitioner was sentenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to a 30-month term of imprisonment for fraud and false statements. (Rec. Doc. 6, Exh. 1). Petitioner's projected release date, assuming Good Conduct Time release, is July 6, 2008. (Id.).
In the instant action, Petitioner seeks an Order granting him placement in a half-way house or community corrections center ("CCC")*fn2 for the final six months, or the final ten percent, of his sentence.
On February 21, 2007, Respondent Troy Williamson ("Respondent" or "Williamson") was ordered to show cause on or before March 12, 2007, as to why Petitioner should not be granted habeas corpus relief. The February 21, 2007 Order also provided that Petitioner could reply to the response within ten (10) days of the filing thereof. Accordingly, on March 12, 2007, Respondent filed a response to the Petition. Petitioner has not filed a reply thereto.
Thus, on April 17, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report (doc. 8) recommending that the Petition (doc. 1) be dismissed. Objections to Magistrate Judge Smyser's Report were due on May 4, 2007, and to date, none have been filed. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for disposition.
When no objections are made to a magistrate's report, the district court is not statutorily required to review a magistrate judge's report before accepting it. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). According to the Third Circuit, however, "the better practice is 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). When a district court accepts a magistrate judge's report, the report becomes the judgment of the court. Id.
Our review of this case confirms the Magistrate Judge's determinations, and although we have not been presented with any reason to revisit them, we will briefly ...