IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KARL WILKINS, ) 

 ) Civil Action

Petitioner ) No. 03-05639

 )

 vs. )

 ) 

KENNETH KYLER, Superintendent )

 State Correctional Institution)

 Huntingdon, )

LYNN ABRAHAM, District Attorney )

 for Philadelphia, and )

MIKE FISHER, Attorney General of)

 Pennsylvania Office of )

 Attorney General, )

 )

 Respondents )

O R D E R

NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2007, upon consideration

of the Form for Use in Applications for Habeas Corpus Under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (docket entry number 3), which form was filed on

November 25, 2003; it appearing that by Order of the undersigned

filed on March 18, 2004 (docket entry number 4), petitioner’s

action was dismissed without prejudice because he failed to

furnish the court with either a completed In Forma Pauperis

Application or a check in the amount of five dollars; it further

appearing that by Order of the undersigned filed on July 12, 2005

(docket entry number 7), petitioner’s action was reopened because

he furnished the court with a check in the amount of five

dollars; upon consideration of the Response to Petition for

Habeas Corpus, which response was filed on October 25, 2005

(docket entry number 11); upon consideration of the Traverse

Case 2:03-cv-05639-JKG Document 17 Filed 02/15/07 Page 1 of 3
1. When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, we are required to make a de novo determination of those

(Footnote 1 continued):

-2-

Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Person

in State Custody Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which traverse was filed

on December 5, 2005 (docket entry number 14); upon consideration

of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

Judge Peter B. Scuderi, which Report and Recommendation was filed

on December 28, 2005 (docket entry number 15); upon consideration

of the Appeal and Objection to the Report and Recommendation

Provided by the Magistrate Judge’s Order Dated December 29, 2005

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 IV, which appeal and objection was

filed on January 12, 2006 (docket entry 16); it appearing that

petitioner’s objections to Magistrate Judge Scuderi’s Report and

Recommendation are a restatement of issues disposed of by

Magistrate Judge Scuderi’s Report and Recommendation; it further

appearing after de novo review of this matter that Magistrate

Judge Scuderi’s Report and Recommendation correctly determined

the legal and factual issues presented in the petition for habeas

corpus relief,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Scuderi’s Report

and Recommendation is approved and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s objections to

Magistrate Judge Scuderi’s Report and Recommendation are

overruled.1

Case 2:03-cv-05639-JKG Document 17 Filed 02/15/07 Page 2 of 3
(Continuation of footnote 1):

portions of the report, findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 72.1(IV)(b)

of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, district judges have wide

latitude regarding how they treat recommendations of the magistrate judge. 

See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 100 S.Ct. 2406, 65 L.Ed.2d 424

(1980). Indeed, by providing for a de novo determination, rather than a de 

novo hearing, Congress intended to permit a district judge, in the exercise of

the court’s sound discretion, the option of placing whatever reliance the

court chooses to place on the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and 

conclusions. We may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part any of the

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Raddatz, supra. 

As noted above, we conclude that petitioner’s objections to

Magistrate Judge Scuderi’s Report and Recommendation are nothing more than a

restatement of some of the underlying claims contained in his petition for

habeas corpus. Moreover, on page 17 of petitioner’s Kyler’s objections, he

states that “[a]ll the exhibits and arguments have been presented to the

Magistrate Judge Scuderi for consideration that are in this instant motion.” 

Upon review of the Report and Recommendation, together with de

novo review of this matter, we conclude that the Report and Recommendation

correctly determines the legal issues raised by petitioner. Accordingly, we

approve and adopt Magistrate Judge Scuderi’s Report and Recommendation and

overrule petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation.

-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pro se petition for

habeas corpus relief is denied and dismissed without a hearing. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner fails to

demonstrate denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of

appealability is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall

mark this case closed for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James Knoll Gardner 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-05639-JKG Document 17 Filed 02/15/07 Page 3 of 3