From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burt v. Lane

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Oct 17, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1180 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1180

10-17-2017

MATTHEW BURT, Petitioner v. WARDEN KATHY LANE, Respondent


( ) ORDER

AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 2017, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 9) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending that the court deny the petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner Matthew Burt ("Burt"), (id. at 25), wherein Judge Carlson opines that Burt may not challenge, in a federal habeas proceeding, the Bureau of Prisons' discretionary decision to expel him from the Residential Drug Abuse Program, and that, to the extent Burt seeks to recast his claim as one for impermissible retaliation in response to Burt's exercise of his First Amendment rights, the claim fails on its merits, and it appearing that no party has objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of a party to timely object to a magistrate judge's conclusions "may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level," Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as a matter of good practice, a district court should "afford some level of review to dispositive legal issues raised by the report," Henderson, 812 F.2d 878; see also Taylor v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order to "satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record, the court being in agreement with Judge Carlson's recommendation, and concluding that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report (Doc. 9) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.

2. Burt's petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED.

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER

Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Middle District of Pennsylvania


Summaries of

Burt v. Lane

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Oct 17, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1180 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2017)
Case details for

Burt v. Lane

Case Details

Full title:MATTHEW BURT, Petitioner v. WARDEN KATHY LANE, Respondent

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Oct 17, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16-CV-1180 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 17, 2017)

Citing Cases

Allen v. Lackawanna Cnty.

Though a close call, the ten days between Allen's use of FMLA leave and Defendant Browning's email could be…