Richard Lighty v. David Christensen

• Court: District Court, N.D. New York
• Decided: March 3, 2026
• Docket: 9:24-cv-00797
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

RICHARD LIGHTY Petitioner,

-against- 9:24-CV-797 (LEK/MJK)

DAVID CHRISTENSEN

Respondent.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION On June 21, 2024, Petitioner Richard Lighty commenced this action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Western District of Virginia. Dkt. Nos. 1 (“Petition”), 2. Thereafter, the Petition was transferred to this Court. Dkt. No. 3. On June 18, 2025, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York submitted a letter motion seeking the Petition be denied as moot. Dkt. No. 24 (“Motion”). The basis of the Motion was that, inter alia, given “Petitioner has been released,” and that he no longer “seek[s] . . . further relief,” his Petition “lack[s] . . . an ongoing, concrete injury” for this Court to rule on. Mot. at 1; see also Dkt. No. 24-1. On December 23, 2025, the Honorable Mitchell J. Katz, United States Magistrate Judge, issued an Order & Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(d), recommending the Petition be dismissed as moot and that a certificate of appealability be denied. Dkt. No. 26 (“Report and Recommendation”). No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. II. BACKGROUND The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background detailed in the Report and Recommendation. See R. & R. at 1. III. LEGAL STANDARD

“Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28 United States Code Section 636 govern the review of decisions rendered by Magistrate Judges.” A.V. by Versace, Inc. v. Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 191 F. Supp. 2d 404, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Review of decisions rendered by magistrate judges are also governed by the Local Rules. See L.R. 72.1. 28 U.S.C. § 636 states: Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When written objections are filed and the district court conducts a de novo review, that “de novo determination does not require the Court to conduct a new hearing; rather, it mandates that the Court give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific objections have been made.” A.V. by Versace, 191 F. Supp. 2d at 406 (emphasis in original). “A proper objection must be specific.” Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, No. 24- 1103, 2025 WL 3007285, at *3 (2d Cir. Oct. 28, 2025). To be ‘specific,’ the objection must, with particularity, ‘identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.’” Nutt v. New York, No. 12-CV-385, 2012 WL 4006408, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2012) (quoting N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c)). “The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.” DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “When a party makes only conclusory or general objections . . . the Court will review the [report and

recommendation] strictly for clear error.” N.Y.C. Dist. Councils. of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Forde, 341 F. Supp. 3d 334, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, 602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)). IV. DISCUSSION No party objected to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being served with a copy of it. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for clear error. See DiPilato, 662 F. Supp. 2d at 339. After carefully considering Judge Katz’s well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the Court finds no clear error. Thus, the Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.

V. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 26, is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further, ORDERED, that the Petition is DISMISSED as moot and the Clerk is directed to enter judgment and close this case; and it further, ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 3, 2026 Albany, New York LAWRENCE E. KAHN United States District Judge