Santiago v. Miller, 16 Civ 2979 (LAP). (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York
Number: infdco20190916903
Visitors: 24
Filed: Sep. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER LORETTA A. PRESKA , Senior District Judge . Before the Court is Mr. Santiago's "objection to the recommendation report" which the Court construes as objections to Magistrate Judge Moses' Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [dkt. no. 17]. Although it is not crystal clear what Petitioner's objections to the R&R are, he states "The factual background of this case are not the true facts of this case. I could not have done the thing the state said I did because of my heart. There is no reco
Summary: ORDER LORETTA A. PRESKA , Senior District Judge . Before the Court is Mr. Santiago's "objection to the recommendation report" which the Court construes as objections to Magistrate Judge Moses' Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [dkt. no. 17]. Although it is not crystal clear what Petitioner's objections to the R&R are, he states "The factual background of this case are not the true facts of this case. I could not have done the thing the state said I did because of my heart. There is no recor..
More
ORDER
LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior District Judge.
Before the Court is Mr. Santiago's "objection to the recommendation report" which the Court construes as objections to Magistrate Judge Moses' Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [dkt. no. 17].
Although it is not crystal clear what Petitioner's objections to the R&R are, he states "The factual background of this case are not the true facts of this case. I could not have done the thing the state said I did because of my heart. There is no record of my being hospital's for 3 days after the accident the day of my case." [Dkt. no. 20 at p. 1]. He further states "I ask this court to just look at what I am saying and look at the First Police Report and ask what happen from the night of this accident to 8 month later." [Id. at p. 2].
The Court construes Petitioners objection to be that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.1 Judge Moses, however, correctly determined that that claim had sufficient evidence to support the verdict and, even if it were not, the evidence was plainly sufficient (R&R p. 21-23).
After reviewing the Report and Recommendation, and finding Judge Moses's analysis to be correct and appropriate upon de novo review, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Report and Recommendation is hereby adopted in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner failed to exhaust his legal sufficiency claim (R&R p. 20), and, there is no error in that finding.
Source: Leagle
