UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
September 5, 2006
JAMES MIXON, PETITIONER,
DANIEL A. SENKOWSKI, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Laura Taylor Swain, United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Freeman's June 21, 2006, Report and Recommendation (the "report"), which recommends that petitioner James Mixon's petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be denied. No objections to the Report have been received.
In reviewing a report and recommendation, 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(C) (West 2006). "To accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, 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) (citations omitted).
The Court has reviewed carefully Judge Freeman's thorough Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error. The Court therefore adopts the Report for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, the petition is denied.
The Court also adopts Judge Freeman's conclusion that because, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability should not be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Middleton v. Attorneys General of States of N.Y. & Pa. 396 F.3d 207, 209 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam). The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444 (1962).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.