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.

Wilfredo Vergara v. Bruce S. Yelich

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


November 21, 2011

WILFREDO VERGARA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRUCE S. YELICH, SUPERINTENDENT, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul A. Engelmayer, District Judge:

OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Wilfredo Vergara filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 22, 2008. On March 23, 2009, Judge Paul G. Gardephe, to whom this case was originally assigned, ordered the respondent to answer the petition. On July 13, 2010, Judge Gardephe referred the action to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman for the preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On September 23, 2011, Judge Pitman issued his Report and Recommendation to this Court.

DISCUSSION

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. § 636(b)(1)(C). When specific objections are made, "[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). To need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009) (citation omitted); see also Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2003).

CONCLUSION

Careful review of the Report reveals that there is no facial error in its conclusions. The Report, which is incorporated by reference herein, is adopted without modification. The petition for habeas corpus is DENIED. The parties' failure to file written objections precludes appellate review of this decision. See Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008).

SO ORDERED.

20111121

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



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.