ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, District Judge.

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), dated May 20, 2019 (Doc. #23), on Jose Guadalupe's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Judge Davison recommended the Court deny the petition in its entirety.1

A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, but they must be "specific[,] written," and submitted within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), or within seventeen days if the parties are served by mail. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Neither party objected to Judge Davison's thorough and well-reasoned R&R. The Court further has carefully reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise.

Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

The Clerk is instructed to enter Judgment accordingly and close this case.

The Clerk is further instructed to mail a copy of this Order to petitioner at the following address:

As petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005).

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).