Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Adsit v. Annucci, 9:16-CV-0817 (GTS/CFH). (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. New York Number: infdco20180306f15 Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 05, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2018
Summary: DECISION and ORDER GLENN T. SUDDABY , Chief District Judge . Currently before the Court, in this habeas corpus proceeding filed by Jamison Adsit ("Petitioner") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254, is the Report-Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel recommending that the Petition be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), and that a certificate of appealability not issue. (Dkt. No. 33.) Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the ti
More

DECISION and ORDER

Currently before the Court, in this habeas corpus proceeding filed by Jamison Adsit ("Petitioner") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is the Report-Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel recommending that the Petition be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and that a certificate of appealability not issue. (Dkt. No. 33.) Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully considering the matter, the Court can find no clear error1 in the thorough Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel: Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 33, at Parts I-II.) As a result, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation in its entirety for the reasons stated therein.

ACCORDINGLY, it is

ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 33) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) in this matter is DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further

ORDERED that a certificate of appealability not issue with respect to any of the claims set forth in the Petition, because Petitioner has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

FootNotes


1. When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear-error review, "the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) ("I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge's] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
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