IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ROBERT SIMMONS, JR., ) 

 ) Civil Action

Petitioner ) No. 04-04168

 )

 vs. )

 ) 

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE )

 COUNTY OF LANCASTER, )

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE ) 

 STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, and )

HARRY WILSON, )

 )

 Respondents )

O R D E R

NOW, this 23 day of February, 2007, upon rd

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 December 8, 2004; upon consideration of Respondent

District Attorney of Lancaster County’s Answer to Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus, which answer was filed on April 11, 2005 

(docket entry number 9); upon consideration of the Order and the

Memorandum of United States Magistrate Judge M. Faith Angell,

which Order and Memorandum were filed on June 17, 2005 

(docket entry number 15); upon consideration of Respondent

District Attorney of Lancaster County’s Amended Answer to

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which answer was filed on

August 3, 2005 (docket entry number 17); upon consideration of

the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 

Judge M. Faith Angell, which Report and Recommendation was filed

on November 2, 2006 (docket entry number 20); upon consideration

Case 2:04-cv-04168-JKG Document 22 Filed 02/26/07 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

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) 

(Footnote 1 continued):

-2-

of Petitioner’s Objections to the United States Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, which objections were filed on

November 20, 2006 (docket entry number 21); upon consideration of

the attached letter from Assistant District Attorney Alina L.

Andreoli dated November 21, 2006, which letter was received on

November 29, 2006 and which letter states that respondents do not

intend to submit a response to petitioner’s objections, and

Recommendation; it appearing that petitioner’s objections to

Magistrate Judge Angell’s Report and Recommendation, which are

articulated in Petitioner’s Objections to the United States

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, are a restatement

of issues disposed of by Magistrate Judge Angell’s Report and

Recommendation; it further appearing after de novo review of this

matter that Magistrate Judge Angell’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 Angell’s Report and

Recommendation is approved and adopted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s objections to

Magistrate Judge Angell’s Report and Recommendation are

overruled.1

Case 2:04-cv-04168-JKG Document 22 Filed 02/26/07 Page 2 of 3
(Continuation of footnote 1):

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 Angell’s Report and Recommendation are nothing more than a

restatement of some 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, we conclude that the Report and

Recommendation correctly determined the legal issues raised by petitioner.

Accordingly, we approve and adopt Magistrate Judge Angell’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 2:04-cv-04168-JKG Document 22 Filed 02/26/07 Page 3 of 3