UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
June 25, 2008
JOHN L. WAGER, JR., PETITIONER,
JAMES CONWAY, SUPERINTENDENT, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.,s.d.j.
DECISION AND ORDER
The above-captioned matter having been presented to me by the Report-Recommendation and Order of Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece filed May 30, 2008 and the Court having reviewed the Report-Recommendation and the entire file in this matter, and no objections to said Report-Recommendation and Order having been filed, the Court hereby
ORDERS that the Report-Recommendation and Order of Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece filed May 30, 2008 is, for the reasons stated therein, ACCEPTED in its entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that Petitioner file with the Court, within thirty (30)days from the date of this Order, an amended petition which sets forth all the appeals he has taken relative to his convictions, the dates on which each was filed and decided, and the dates on which his motions, pursuant to CPL § 440 were filed and decided, both in the trial court and in the appellate courts, and the Court further
ORDERS, that said amended petition be written in full compliance with Rule 2 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the U.S. District Courts as detailed above. Petitioner should clearly state why he believes the Appellate Division erred in entering the judgment for the lesser-included offense and how his conviction was obtained through a miscarriage of justice. Also, the Clerk of the Court is directed to provide Petitioner with a blank § 2254 habeas petition for his use in complying with the Report-Recommendation, and the Court further
ORDERS, that if the Petitioner fails to file such an amended petition within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, the instant action is DISMISSED without further order of this Court due to Petitioner's failure to comply herewith, and the Court further
ORDERS, that upon full compliance by the Petitioner with the Report-Recommendation as directed above, the file in this matter will be returned to the Court for further review.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.