United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
G. SMITH, J.
NOW, this 10th day of January, 2017, after considering the
petition for writ of habeas corpus and supporting memorandum
of law filed by the pro se petitioner, Tyrone Slowe
(Doc. Nos. 1, 5); the respondents' response in opposition
to the petition (Doc. No. 6); the petitioner's reply to
the respondents' response (Doc. No. 7); the
respondents' supplemental response to the petition (Doc.
No. 9); the state court record; and the report and
recommendation filed by the Honorable Henry S. Perkin (Doc.
No. 12); and no party having filed objections to the report
and recommendation despite the period for filing objections
having passed; accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
1. The report and recommendation (Doc. No. 12) is APPROVED
2. The petitioner's motion to stay is GRANTED and the
court will hold the habeas petition in abeyance pending the
petitioner's exhaustion of state remedies;
3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to continue to place this
case on the civil suspense docket;
4. The petitioner shall exhaust all claims in state court;
5. Within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the state
court proceedings, including any appellate proceedings
related thereto, the petitioner shall notify the court that
those proceedings are concluded and the case is ready to
proceed in this court. The petitioner shall so notify the
court by filing a notice with the Clerk of Court; and
6. The state court record (No. CP-23-CR-2955-2008) shall be
returned to the state court for use in the state court
 Since neither party has filed
objections to Judge Perkin's report and recommendation,
the court need not review the report before adopting it.
Henderson v. Carlson,812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.
1987). Nonetheless, “the better practice is for the
district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive
legal issues raised by the report.” Id. As
such, the court will review the report for plain error.
See Oldrati v. Apfel,33 F.Supp.2d 397, 399 (E.D.
Pa. 1998) (“In the absence of a timely objection, . . .
this Court will review [the magistrate judge's] Report
and Recommendation for clear error.” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). The court may “accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings ...