Rivera v. Rich

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ DOUGLAS RIVERA, Petitioner, 9:20-CV-0865 v. (GTS/ATB) JOHN RICH, Super., Elmira Corr. Fac., Respondent. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: DOUGLAS RIVERA, 15-B-2793 Petitioner, Pro Se Marcy Correctional Facility P.O. Box 3600 Marcy, New York 13403 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES MARGARET A. CIEPRISZ, ESQ. Attorney General for the State of New York Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Respondent 28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this habeas corpus proceeding filed pro se by Douglas Rivera (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s Report-Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied and dismissed, and that no certificate of appealability be issued. (Dkt. No. 41.) Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report- Recommendation.’ Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Petitioner’s Petition is denied and dismissed, and no certificate of appealability shall be issued. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 41) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Dated: May 23, 2022 Syracuse, New York

Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby Chief U.S. District Judg

! When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“Iam permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).