IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAVIER GONZALEZ, )

 ) Civil Action

Plaintiff ) No. 05-CV-01677

 )

vs. )

 )

JOHN PALAKOVICH, )

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE )

 COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and )

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE)

 OF PENNSYLVANIA, )

 )

Defendants )

O R D E R

NOW, this 27th day of April, 2007, upon consideration

of the Form for Use in Applications for Habeas Corpus Under 28

U.S.C. § 2254, which form was filed on August 14, 2006; upon

consideration of the Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, which response was filed on November 15, 2006; upon

consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, filed on January 26, 2007;

upon consideration of Petitioner’s Objection to the Magistrate’s

Report and Recommendation, which objection was filed on March 16,

2007; it appearing that petitioner’s objections to Magistrate

Judge Rueter’s Report and Recommendation, which are articulated

in Petitioner’s Reply to Respondents’ Answer to Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus, are a restatement of issues disposed of by

Magistrate Judge Rueter’s Report and Recommendation; it further

appearing after de novo review of this matter that Magistrate

Judge Rueter’s Report and Recommendation correctly determined the

Case 2:05-cv-01677-JKG Document 29 Filed 05/01/07 Page 1 of 3
1. When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, I am required to make a de novo determination of those

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. I 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, I conclude that petitioner’s objections to

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

restatement of the underlying claims contained in his petition for habeas

corpus. Moreover, upon review of the Report and Recommendation, together with

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

correctly determines the legal issues raised by petitioner.

Accordingly, I approve and adopt Magistrate Judge Rueter’s Report

and Recommendation and overrule petitioner’s objections to the Report and

Recommendation.

-2-

legal and factual issues presented in the petition for habeas

corpus relief,

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Rueter’s Report and

Recommendation is approved and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s objections to

Magistrate Judge Rueter’s Report and Recommendation are

overruled.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pro se petition for

habeas corpus relief is dismissed without a hearing. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner fails to

demonstrate either denial of a constitutional right, or that

reasonable jurists could debate whether his petition should be 

Case 2:05-cv-01677-JKG Document 29 Filed 05/01/07 Page 2 of 3
-3-

resolved in a different manner, 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 2:05-cv-01677-JKG Document 29 Filed 05/01/07 Page 3 of 3