Michael L. Bell v. Kevin McCarthy

• Court: District Court, W.D. New York
• Decided: March 27, 2026
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00646
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Corom J WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MAR 2 6 2026 TTTTtn AN □□ MICHAEL L. BELL, & SETS

Petitioner, Vv. 23-CV-646 (JLS) (HKS) KEVIN MCCARTHY, Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER Petitioner filed this 22 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus on July 6, 2023, challenging his state court conviction for second degree murder. See Dkt. 1. The case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Schroeder for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). Dkt. 19. On June 17, 2025, Respondent moved to dismiss Petitioner’s habeas petition as untimely. Dkt. 14. Petitioner responded to the motion to dismiss, Dkt. 18, and Respondent replied. Dkt. 20. On November 18, 2025, Judge Schroeder issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this Court grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. Dkt. 21 at 4. In response, Petitioner made two filings, Dkts. 25 and 26, which this Court construed as objections to the R&R. In the first filing, Petitioner offers a series of documents and arguments that were already raised with Judge Schroeder. Compare Dkt. 25 with Dkts. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 18. In the second filing,

Petitioner cites to a case that does not appear to have been cited below, Shi Wei Su v. Filion, 335 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2003), and analogizes the circumstances of that case to those in his state court case to argue that his conviction must be set aside. See generally Dkt. 26. Respondents did not respond to these filings. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 6386(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections briefing, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Schroeder’s recommendation. Thus, for the reasons in the R&R, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. SO ORDERED. Dated: March 26, 2026 /) Buffalo, New York \ NH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE