Ifill v. Lamanna

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: July 14, 2022
• Docket: 1:21-cv-02993
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 07/14/ 2022 ------------------------------------------------------------------- X : RICHARD IFILL, : Petitioner, : : 21-CV-2993 (VEC) -against- : : : ORDER ADOPTING AMY LAMANNA, Superintendent, Five Points : REPORT & Correctional Facility, : RECOMMENDATION Respondent. : X ------------------------------------------------------------------- VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: WHEREAS on April 7, 2021, Petitioner Richard Ifill filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Dkt. 1; WHEREAS Mr. Ifill alleges that the police lineup in which he was identified by a victim of a robbery and kidnapping was unduly suggestive, violating his federal constitutional right to Due Process, Dkt. 2 at 2; WHEREAS on April 9, 2021, the Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Parker for the preparation of a report and recommendation (“R&R”) on this petition, Dkt. 4; WHEREAS after the petition was fully briefed, Judge Parker entered an R&R recommending that the Court deny Mr. Ifill’s petition, Dkt. 13 at 27; WHEREAS in the R&R, Judge Parker notified the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), they had fourteen days to file written objections to the R&R’s findings, id. at 28; WHEREAS after a court-ordered extension of his time to object, Mr. Ifill objected to the R&R on January 6, 2022, Dkt. 16; 20; WHEREAS in reviewing an R&R, a district court “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)(C); WHEREAS when specific objections are made to the R&R, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Male Juv., 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997); WHEREAS where objections are “merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to . . . rehash[] the same arguments set forth in the original papers,” a “district court need only

find that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the Report and Recommendation,” Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955 F. Supp. 2d 201, 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (cleaned up); WHEREAS Mr. Ifill’s objections are both conclusory and duplicative of past arguments, see Dkt. 16 at 8 (stating that the lineup identification was unduly suggestive because petitioner was the only bald man in the lineup), id. at 9 (stating that the lineup identification was not independently reliable under the five-factor analysis set forth in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 199 (1972)); Dkt. 16 at 11 (asserting Judge Parker should have included a harmless error analysis because of errors in her substantive analysis); WHEREAS because Mr. Ifill’s objections are perfunctory and not substantive, the Court

may accept the R&R if there is no clear error on the face of the record; WHEREAS an error is clear when the reviewing court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed,” see Cosme v. Henderson, 287 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting McAllister v. United States, 348 U.S. 19, 20 (1954)); and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R is adopted in full, and Petitioner’s petition is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a federal right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), and appellate review is therefore not warranted. See Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court certifies under 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). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the open motion at docket entry 1.

SO ORDERED. < Vode (oe Date: July 14, 2022 VALERIE CAPRONI New York, NY United States District Judge