IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
April 11, 2012
BRIAN D. COLEMAN, ET AL. RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul S. Diamond, J.
On July 6, 2011, Kareem Armstrong submitted a petition for habeas corpus relief.
28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 10, 2012, the Magistrate issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. No. 10.) The Parties have not filed objections to the Report, and the date to do so has passed. See Local Rule 72.1.
I may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and recommendations contained in the Report. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Because no objections have been filed, I am not required to review the Report's findings de novo, though I give them "reasoned consideration." See Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 879 (3d Cir. 1987).
After careful review of the record and the Report and Recommendation, I agree with the Magistrate that Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies, and therefore may not seek habeas relief in this Court. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 847-48 (1999). Accordingly, I will adopt the Report and Recommendation, and dismiss Armstrong's petition without prejudice.
AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2012, upon careful and independent consideration of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and after review of the Report and Recommendation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED.
2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED without prejudice.
3. There is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paul S. Diamond
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.