Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Peoples v. Noeth, 9:17-cv-0625 (BKS/CFH). (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. New York Number: infdco20191016d21 Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 15, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 15, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER BRENDA K. SANNES , District Judge . Petitioner, Jalaal Peoples, a New York State inmate, commenced this habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. 2254 on June 12, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1). Respondent filed a response to the petition, and Petitioner filed a traverse. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 12). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel who, on August 12, 2019, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied and that no
More

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

Petitioner, Jalaal Peoples, a New York State inmate, commenced this habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 12, 2017. (Dkt. No. 1). Respondent filed a response to the petition, and Petitioner filed a traverse. (Dkt. Nos. 5, 12). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel who, on August 12, 2019, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied and that no certificate of appealability be issued. (Dkt. No. 13). Magistrate Judge Hummel advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Dkt. No. 13, at 18-19). No objections have been filed.

As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F.Supp.3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation in its entirety.

For these reasons, it is

ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that no certificate of appealability is issued because Petitioner has failed to make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer