Drumgold v. Superintendent

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: October 8, 2025
• Docket: 9:23-cv-00544
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JAYQUAN DRUMGOLD,

Petitioner, 9:23-cv-544 (ECC/DJS) v.

SUPERINTENDENT, LAKEVIEW SHOCK INCARCERATION CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

Respondent.

Jayquan Drumgold, Petitioner, pro se Margaret A. Cieprisz, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent Hon. Elizabeth C. Coombe, United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER Petitioner Jayquan Drumgold, a New York State inmate, commenced this Habeas Corpus action asserting claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1. On October 27, 2023, Respondent filed an answer, accompanied by the state court records related to the matter. Dkt. Nos. 13, 14. Petitioner filed a traverse on November 22, 2023. Dkt. No. 19. This matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Stewart who, on July 23, 2025, issued a Report-Recommendation and Order recommending that Petitioner’s petition be denied and dismissed and recommending that no Certificate of Appealability (COA) be issued 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). Dkt. No. 22. Magistrate Judge Stewart 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-Recommendation, and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Dkt. No. 22. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed.1 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. 22, is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that the Petition be DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED, that no Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) be issued; 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.

1 The Court notes that Petitioner has not provided notice of any change in address even though the magistrate judge made clear that his failure to do so would result in dismissal of this action. See Dkt. No. 3 at 6 (“Petitioner must also promptly notify the Clerk’s Office and all parties or their counsel of any change in his address. His failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action.”). Petitioner’s last known address and the address listed on the docket report is Lakeview Shock Incarceration Correctional Facility, but a search of the Inmate Information Database maintained by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision using Petitioner’s Department ID Number (18-A-3891) indicates that DOCCS discharged him from custody on March 7, 2024. Rather than dismiss this action for Plaintiff’s failure to keep the Court apprised of his mailing address, the Court is denying and dismissing the Petition on those bases set forth in the Report-Recommendation. Dated: October 8, 2025 Syracuse, New York

Elizabeth C. Coombe U.S. District Judge