Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thomas v. Bell, 9:18-cv-0706 (BKS/ATB). (2019)

Court: District Court, N.D. New York Number: infdco20191010657 Visitors: 6
Filed: Oct. 01, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER BRENDA K. SANNES , District Judge . On June 18, 2018, Petitioner Gavin C. Thomas filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254 seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. No. 1). Respondent filed a response to the petition on October 5, 2018, and Petitioner filed a traverse on October 25, 2018. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 9). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter who, on July 31, 2019, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending tha
More

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

On June 18, 2018, Petitioner Gavin C. Thomas filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. No. 1). Respondent filed a response to the petition on October 5, 2018, and Petitioner filed a traverse on October 25, 2018. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 9). This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter who, on July 31, 2019, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied and dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability be denied. (Dkt. No. 11). Magistrate Judge Baxter 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. 11, at 28). 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 Report-Recommendation is adopted in its entirety.

For these reasons, it is

ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

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

ORDERED that no Certificate of Appealability ("COA") shall issue 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). Any further request for a COA must be addressed to the Court of Appeals (Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)); and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon 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