Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lineberger v. Conway

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


February 25, 2008

CHARLES EDWARD LINEBERGER, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN T. CONWAY, ACTING SUPERINTENDENT, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kimba M. Wood, U.S.D.J.

ORDER

Pro se Petitioner Charles Edward Lineberger seeks a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, to vacate his New York State conviction rendered on January 9, 1998, on one count each of Robbery in the First Degree, Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth Degree. By report and recommendation dated November 1, 2007 (the "Report"), Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis recommended that the Court deny the petition.

The Report informed the parties that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b), in conjunction with Rules 6(a) and 6(e), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, they had ten days from service of the Report to serve and file any objections. The Report also informed the parties that they had an opportunity to request an extension of time to file objections. Finally, the Report explicitly cautioned them that failure to file timely objections would waive appellate review.

No objections to the Report have been filed, and the time to object has expired. See IUE AFL-CIO Pension Fund v. Herrmann, 9 F.3d 1049, 1054 (2d Cir. 1993). Consequently, the parties cannot seek further judicial review of the magistrate judge's decision. See Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989); accord Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985) (upholding waiver rule when "it incorporates clear notice to the litigants and an opportunity to seek an extension of time for filing objections").

Reviewing the Report's conclusions, the Court finds them to be free of any "clear error on the face of the record." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee's note; see also Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). The Court therefore adopts the Report.*fn1

Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The petition is therefore dismissed. A certificate of appealability will not issue because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case; any pending motions are moot.

SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.