The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
Currently before this Court, in this habeas corpus proceeding filed pro se by petitioner Lester Crandall ("Petitioner") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is United States Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe's Report-Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied and dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability not issue. (Dkt. No. 15.) For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety: Petitioner's petition is denied and dismissed in its entirety; and the Court directs that a certificate of appealability not issue.
I. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
When specific objections are made to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).*fn1
When only general objections are made to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation (or the objecting party merely repeats the allegations of his pleading), the Court reviews for clear error or manifest injustice. See Brown v. Peters, 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997) (Pooler, J.) [collecting cases], aff'd without opinion, 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999).*fn2 Similarly, when a party makes no objection to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court reviews that portion for clear error or manifest injustice. See Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) [citations omitted]; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition [citations omitted]. After conducting the appropriate review, the 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)(C).
B. Standard Governing Review of Petitioner's Habeas Petition
Magistrate Judge Lowe correctly recited the legal standard governing review of Petitioner's habeas petition. (Dkt. No. 15, at 2-4.) As a result, this standard is incorporated by reference in this Decision and Order, which is intended primarily for review of the parties.
On August 30, 2007, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition. (Dkt. No. 1.)*fn3 On September 13, 2007, Petitioner filed a memorandum of law in support of his petition. (Dkt. No. 4.) On December 7, 2007, Respondent filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Petitioner's petition, and a response. (Dkt. Nos. 6, 7.) On January 7, 2008, Petitioner filed his traverse. (Dkt. No. 11.) On June 1, 2010, Magistrate Judge Lowe issued a Report-Recommendation, recommending thatthe Petition be denied and dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability not issue. (Dkt. No. 15.) On June 16, 2010, Petitioner submitted his Objections to the Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 16.)
For the sake of brevity, the Court will not repeat the factual background of Petitioner's March 2006 conviction for sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, but will simply refer the parties to the relevant portions of Magistrate Judge Lowe's Report-Recommendation, which accurately recites that factual background. (Dkt. No. 15, at 1-2.)
In his petition, Petitioner claims that there are three grounds that entitle him to habeas relief: (1) the prosecution and police intentionally withheld and spoliated exculpatory evidence; (2) his trial counsel was ineffective; and (3) the police and ...