King v. Ogle et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NATHAN LAMONT KING, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM OGLE, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-01252
(SAPORITO, J.)
(LATELLA, M.J)
ORDER
Now before the court is a report and recommendation of United
States Magistrate Judge Leo A. Latella, in which he recommends that
the plaintiff ’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) be dismissed
without prejudice. (Doc. 12).
The plaintiff is currently pending trial in York County on criminal
charges and asserts that he was arrested for a probation violation out of
Dauphin County. (Doc. 12, at 2) (citing Doc. 1, at 3–4). In his report and
recommendation, Judge Latella notes that the plaintiff seemingly brings
forth his petition to challenge the validity of his probation in Dauphin
County, arguing that a valid probation agreement does not exist. (
Id., at
3). But upon review of the plaintiff ’s petition, Judge Latella finds that
the 	plaintiff 	has 	failed 	to 	exhaust 	the 	prerequisite 	state 	remedies
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 14 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
necessary to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court.
Moreover, Judge Latella also finds that the
Younger abstention doctrine
also 	applies 	to 	the 	plaintiff ’s 	petition.1 	Therefore, 	Judge 	Latella
recommends that the plaintiff ’s writ of habeas corpus be dismissed
without prejudice.
No 	timely 	objections 	have 	been 	filed 	to 	the 	report 	and
recommendation, resulting in the forfeiture of de novo review by this
court.
See Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007);
Henderson v.
Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878–79 (3d Cir. 1987).
Following an independent review of the report and the record, and
having afforded “reasoned consideration” to the uncontested portions of
the report,
E.E.O.C. v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2017),
we are satisfied “that there is no clear error on the face of the record,”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee note to 1983 amendment. We find
Judge Latella’s analysis to be well-reasoned and fully supported by the
record and applicable law. Accordingly, the court will adopt the report
1 The
	Younger abstention doctrine is “a legal doctrine granting
federal courts discretion to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a
claim when resolution of that claim would interfere with an ongoing state
proceeding.”
Kendall v. Russell, 572 F.3d 126, 130 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971)).
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 14 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
and recommendation in its entirety as the decision of the court.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	The report and recommendation of Judge Latella (Doc. 12) is
ADOPTED; and
2. 	The plaintiff ’s writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
3. 	The Clerk shall close the case.
Dated: February 27, 2026
	s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 14 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 3