Filed: Jan. 15, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 15, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER NORMAN A. MORDUE , Senior District Judge . Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, brings this proceeding for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner challenges his convictions — ultimately upheld by the New York State courts — of attempted rape in the first degree; two counts of assault in the second degree; one count of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree; and one count o
Summary: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER NORMAN A. MORDUE , Senior District Judge . Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, brings this proceeding for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Petitioner challenges his convictions — ultimately upheld by the New York State courts — of attempted rape in the first degree; two counts of assault in the second degree; one count of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree; and one count of..
More
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
NORMAN A. MORDUE, Senior District Judge.
Petitioner, an inmate in the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, brings this proceeding for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges his convictions — ultimately upheld by the New York State courts — of attempted rape in the first degree; two counts of assault in the second degree; one count of unlawful imprisonment in the first degree; and one count of promoting prison contraband. Upon referral pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.4, United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks issued an excellent and thorough Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21) recommending dismissal of the habeas corpus petition and denial of a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner has filed a general objection (Dkt. No. 22), stating that he "objects to the Order and Report and Recommendation regarding the denial of all four grounds raised in the Petition" and further objecting to the recommendation that no certificate of appealability be issued. Where, as here, only general objections are filed, the Court reviews for clear error. See Brown v. Peters, 1997 WL 599355,*2-*3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997), aff'd without op., 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999).
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the Report and Recommendation and the record herein, and finds no error. Indeed, even applying the de novo standard of review, the Court agrees with and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the petition is denied and dismissed.
A certificate of appealability may be issued "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Since petitioner has failed to make such a showing herein, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability in this matter. See Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236, 239-40 (1998).
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Order and Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 21) by United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks is adopted and accepted in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the petition (Dkt. No. 1) is denied and dismissed; and it is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not be issued in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
