United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.
AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the report and recommendation (Doc. 17) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending the court deny the petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner and state prisoner Philmingo Jamison ("Jamison") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, wherein Judge Carlson concludes that discretionary parole denials do not offend constitutional guarantees of substantive or procedural due process, (Doc. 17 at 6-7), and that Jamison has not shown the Parole Board's decision to be conscience-shocking or so sufficiently egregious as to be arbitrary or capricious, (id. at 7-9), and following an independent review of the petition, the court agreeing with Judge Carlson that Jamison's claim is meritless and subject to dismissal, see Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex , 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979) (holding "there is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence"); Block v. Potter , 631 F.2d 233, 236 (3d Cir. 1980) (observing that "even if a state statute does not give rise to a liberty interest in parole release under Greenholtz, once a state institutes a parole system all prisoners have a liberty interest... in not being denied parole for arbitrary or constitutionally impermissible reasons"), and it appearing that neither party has objected to the report, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record,  see Nara v. Frank , 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The report (Doc. 17) of Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. The petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner Philmingo Jamison is DENIED.
3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. See RULES GOVERNING ...