Case 3:14-cv-00264-ARC Document 6 Filed 03/12/14 Page 1 of 1 lN THE UN|TED STATES DlSTRlCT COURT FOR THE M|DDLE DlSTRlCT OF PENNSYLVAN|A MARco IvllGuEl_ RoBERTsoN, c petitione,, clvlL AchoN No. 3:cv-14-264 : (JuDGE cAPuTo) (MAeisTRATE JuDGE cARLsoN) v. WARDEN J.E. THOMAS, Respondent. ORDER J:H NOW, this z day of March, 2014, upon review of the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 4) for plain error or manifest injustice, Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5),1 and the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), and finding that Petitioner’s civil rights claims are not cognizable in the instant habeas action, |T lS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) The Report & Recommendation (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED. (2) The Petition (Doc. 1) is DEN|ED without prejudice to the filing of a separate civil rights action, if Petitioner so desires. (3) A Certificate of Appea|ability SHALL NOT |SSUE. (4) The Clerk of Court is directed to mark the . A. Richard`(§£‘t{c:,'~:m United States istrict Judge Where objections to the Magistrate Judge's report are tiled, the court must conduct a de novo review of the contested portions of the report. Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1106 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c)). However, this only applies to the extent that a party's objections are both timely and specific Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5" date_filed="1984-12-06" court="3rd Cir." case_name="Alvin E. Goney v. James E. Clark, Jr., Warden, Fayette County Jail">749 F.2d 5, 6-7 (3d Cir. 1984). Because the Objections do not address the fact that Petitioner is attempting to bring civil rights claims in the instant habeas action, the Report and Recommendation has been reviewed for clear error or manifest injustice See, e.g., Cruz v. Chater, 990 F. Supp. 375" date_filed="1998-01-12" court="M.D. Penn." case_name="Cruz v. Chater">990 F. Supp. 375, 376-77 (M.D. Pa. 1998).