The opinion of the court was delivered by: (judge Caputo)
(MAGISTRATE JUDGE MANNION)
Presently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4), and Petitioner's Objections to the September 14, 2007 Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 5.) The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court dismiss the Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 4.) For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation will be overruled, and the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation and dismiss the Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The Petitioner, Maximo A. Reyes-Vasquez, is a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institute Allenwood ("FCI-Allenwood") in White Deer, Pennsylvania. (Pet. at 1, Doc. 1.) On March 7, 1991, an arrest warrant for the Petitioner was issued by Magistrate Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for racketeering, drug trafficking, and related offenses. (Id. at 2.) A second warrant for these offenses was later issued by the same court on September 11, 1991. (Id.) On July 10, 1997, the Embassy of the United States of America requested the extradition of Petitioner Reyes-Vasquez pursuant to the Extradition Treaty between the United States and the Dominican Republic of June 19, 1909. (Pet. Ex. A.) The President of the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernandez, signed a decree to extradite the Petitioner on August 12, 1997. (Pet. Ex. E.) On August 13, 1997, the Petitioner was transported from the Dominican Republic to the United States, at which time he was placed under arrest. (Pet. at 2.) The Petitioner pled guilty to racketeering pursuant to RICO and conspiracy to murder. (Id. at 2.) The Petitioner was sentenced to twenty (20) years incarceration on the RICO count, to run consecutively with a ten (10) year sentence on the conspiracy to murder count. (Id.)
Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on August 8, 2007. (Doc. 1.) On September 14, 2007, Magistrate Judge Mannion issued the present Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4), recommending that the Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. Petitioner filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation on September 27, 2007. (Doc. 5.) The Report and Recommendation is ripe for disposition.
I. Review of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
Where objections to the magistrate judge's report are filed, the Court must conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of the report, Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)), provided the objections are both timely and specific, Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984). In making its de novo review, the Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Owens v. Beard, 829 F. Supp. 736, 738 (M.D. Pa. 1993). Although the review is de novo, the statute permits the Court to rely on the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675-76 (1980); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7; Ball v. United States Parole Comm'n, 849 F. Supp. 328, 330 (M.D. Pa. 1994). Uncontested portions of the report may be reviewed at a standard determined by the district court. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985); Goney, 749 F.2d at 7. At the very least, the Court should review uncontested portions for clear error or manifest injustice. See, e.g., Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375, 376-77 (M.D. Pa. 1998).
II. Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
This Court considers the present writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243, which states:
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.
Id. Magistrate Judge Mannion recommended that this petition be dismissed sua sponte due to lack of standing pursuant to this section, in that the detained Petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of his detention. In Lonchar v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 314, 320 (1996), the Supreme Court stated that "a district court is authorized to dismiss a petition summarily when 'it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that he petitioner is not ...