Steward v. Napoli

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-05758
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ANTHONY STEWARD, 24-CV-5758 (RA) Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION NAPOLI, AUBURN CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY,

Respondent.

RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge: In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”), pro se Petitioner Anthony Steward challenges his conviction, following a jury trial, for attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, intimidating a witness, and two counts of criminal contempt in the second degree. See Dkt. No. 1; Dkt. No. 21-3 at 19. Now before the Court are three motions. First, Respondent Auburn Correctional Facility moves to dismiss the claims in the Petition on the ground that they are unexhausted. See Dkt. No. 21. Second, Petitioner moves to amend his Petition. See Dkt. No. 24. And third, Petitioner seeks “immediate release.” See Dkt. No. 12. On December 12, 2024, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the thirteen-count Petition, though it only referenced counts one through four in its briefing. Dkt. No. 21. The next day, Petitioner advised the Court he sought to amend his Petition by amending two claims and adding two others. See R&R 3. Since Petitioner submitted his proposed amendments to the Petition after Respondent filed its motion to dismiss, the Court considered the motion to dismiss in light of the proposed amendments. On July 31, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued a Report and Recommendation (the “Report” or “R&R”) recommending that the Court (1) grant the motion to dismiss claims one through four without prejudice; (2) dismiss claims five through fifteen without prejudice sua sponte; (3) grant Petitioner’s motion to amend the Petition; and (4) deny Petitioner’s

motion for release and/or bail. For the reasons that follow, the Court adopts the well-reasoned Report in its entirety. 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). “Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of a report], any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Where no timely objection has been made to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). Although the Report advised the parties they would have fourteen days to file written

objections, R&R 15, no party has done so. Having conducted a careful review of the record and examined the Report for clear error, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety. Although the Court shares Petitioner’s frustration with the delay in the appellate process, it sees no clear error in Judge Willis’s analysis. R&R 13. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted in its entirety without prejudice; Petitioner’s motion to amend is granted; and Petitioner’s motion for release and/or bail is dismissed. The parties’ failure to timely object to the Report “operates as a waiver” and precludes appellate review of this decision. Kashelkar v. Vill. of Spring Valley, 320 F. App’x 53, 54 (2d Cir. 2009) (summary order) (citing DeLeon v. Strack, 234 F.3d 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2000)). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate any pending motions, see Dkt. Nos. 12, 21, and 24, to close this case, and to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner Anthony Steward 18-A-0634 Auburn Correctional Facility P.O. Box 618 Auburn, NY 13021.

SO ORDERED. Dated: August 28, 2025 {J / New York, New York J A ( □ Ronnie Abrams United States District Judge