United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
MITCHELL S. GOLDBERG, J.
NOW this 8th day of July, 2019, upon
consideration of Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus (Doc. No. 39), Respondents' Opposition
(Doc No. 41), Petitioner's Reply (Doc. No. 43), the
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United
States Magistrate Judge Marilyn Heffley (Doc. No. 44),
Petitioner's Objections (Doc. No. 46), and
Respondents' Opposition to the Objections (Doc. No. 48),
I find as follows:
and Procedural History
1983, a Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas jury
convicted Petitioner, Alonzo Robinson, of rape, involuntary
deviate sexual intercourse, and simple assault. Petitioner
was subsequently sentenced to twenty-seven and a half to
fifty-five years' imprisonment. In connection with his
apprehension and arrest in the sexual offense charges,
Petitioner was separately charged, tried, convicted, and
sentenced for firearms violations, resisting arrest, and
Petitioner appealed these convictions to both the
Pennsylvania Superior Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court, both of which affirmed his convictions. Petitioner
also sought and was denied relief under the Pennsylvania
Post-Conviction Relief Act (“PCRA”), 42 Pa.C.S.
§§ 9541, et seq.
Petitioner previously filed four petitions for writ of habeas
corpus, all of which challenged his conviction and sentence.
These petitions were all denied.
November 16, 2017, Petitioner filed the current pro
se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his
denial of parole. Specifically, he claimed that he had been
improperly denied parole on six occasions following the
expiration of his minimum sentence on June 4, 2012.
Retained counsel subsequently entered an appearance on
Petitioner's behalf and, on August 7, 2018, filed an
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging only
the latest denial of parole on September 21, 2017.
case was referred to Judge Heffley, who issued an R&R on
March 22, 2019, finding that Petitioner's due process
claim was meritless and that Petitioner was not entitled to
March 22, 2019, Petitioner filed Objections to that Report,
which I now consider.
for Review of an R&R
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), a district court judge
may refer a habeas petition to a magistrate judge for
proposed findings of fact and recommendations for
disposition. When objections to a Report and Recommendation
have been filed, the district court must make a de
novo review of those portions of the report to which
specific objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n.3 (3d Cir.
1989). In performing this review, the district court
“may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part,
the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate
judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Fourteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part: “nor
shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law.” U.S. Const.
amend. XIV, § 1. However, “[i]t is well-settled
that ‘there is no constitutional or inherent right of a
convicted person to be conditionally released before the
expiration of a valid sentence.” Anderson v.
PBPP, No. 05-163, 2006 WL 1149233, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Apr.
26, 2006) (quoting Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal
& Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979));
see Harper v. Thomas, No. 07-647, 2007 WL 2713246,
at *4 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2007). Thus, the Constitution