IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAURICE JONES, )

Petitioner ) Civil Action 

) No. 05-CV-05384

vs. )

)

JOSEPH J. PIAZZA, )

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE )

 COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA and )

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE )

 STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA, )

)

Respondents )

O R D E R

 NOW, this 9th day of March, 2007, upon consideration 

of the pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which petition

was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania on October 14, 2005 together with

Petitioner’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 filed October 28,

2005; upon consideration of the Response to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, which response was filed March 22, 2006 by

respondents; upon consideration of Petitioner’s Motion Requesting

a Stay on Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus to

Return to the State Courts to File a PCRA Petition on Newly

Discovered Evidence, which motion was filed March 15, 2006; upon

consideration of the Response to Motion to Stay Proceedings

Pending Exhaustion of State Court Remedies, which response was

filed March 22, 2006 by respondents; upon consideration of the

Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-05384-JKG Document 16 Filed 03/13/07 Page 1 of 4
-2-

Jacob P. Hart filed March 28, 2006; upon consideration of the

Petitioner’s Objection to the Magistrate’s Report and

Recommendation on Petitioner’s Application for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus Under § 2254 filed August 16, 2006; it appearing that

Magistrate Judge Hart considered the merits of petitioner’s

motion to stay in his Report and Recommendation; it further

appearing that my May 6, 2006 Order extended petitioner’s

deadline to file objections to the Report and Recommendation

until June 5, 2006 and that petitioner failed to timely object to

Magistrate Judge Hart’s Report and Recommendation; it further

appearing petitioner’s objections merely restate the issues

raised in his underlying petition; it further appearing that

petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus is time-barred and

without merit; it further appearing that, after de novo review of

this matter, Magistrate Judge Hart’s Report and Recommendation

correctly determined the legal and factual issues presented in

the petition for habeas corpus relief as well as petitioner’s

motion to stay the within action,

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of

United States Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart is approved and

adopted.

Case 2:05-cv-05384-JKG Document 16 Filed 03/13/07 Page 2 of 4
When objections are filed to a magistrate judge’s report and 1

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, despite receiving an extension of time to file

objections to Magistrate Hart’s Report and Recommendation, petitioner’s

objections were untimely filed and petitioner failed to provide any

explanation for the late filing. Although a failure to timely file objections

is not a jurisdictional defect, such a failure without justification provides

sufficient grounds to deny consideration of the objections. Time limitations

on filing objections must be strictly observed. See Gradison v. Moore, 

786 F.2d 146, 148 (3d Cir. 1986). 

However, in an abundance of caution, I have considered

petitioner’s objections to the Report and Recommendation and I conclude his

objections 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 Hart’s Report

and Recommendation, including the denial of petitioner’s motion to stay this

habeas corpus proceeding, and overrule petitioner’s objections.

-3-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s objections to

the Report and Recommendation are overruled.1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion

Requesting a Stay on Petitioner’s Application for Writ of Habeas

Corpus to Return to the State Courts to File a PCRA Petition on

Newly Discovered Evidence is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pro se petition for

habeas corpus relief is denied without a hearing.

Case 2:05-cv-05384-JKG Document 16 Filed 03/13/07 Page 3 of 4
-4-

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 matter as dismissed for statistical purposes.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ James Knoll Gardner 

James Knoll Gardner

United States District Judge 

Case 2:05-cv-05384-JKG Document 16 Filed 03/13/07 Page 4 of 4