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.

David Peters v. Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


January 23, 2012

DAVID PETERS, PETITIONER,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT OF SING SING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary L. Sharpe Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

I. Introduction

Petitioner pro se David Peters brings this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that his current confinement in state custody is in violation of his federal constitutional rights. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) filed October 19, 2011, Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed in all respects.*fn1 (See generally R&R, Dkt. No. 11.) Pending are Peters' objections to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 14.) For the reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.

II. Standard of Review

Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report and recommendation orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole,No. 04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id.

III. Discussion

Peters' "objections" consist of factual statements and legal citations which were already considered by Judge Peebles. (See Dkt. No. 14 at 3-7.) While Peters clearly believes the state courts erred, Judge Peebles found his assertions were either procedurally forfeited and/or lacked merit. (See R&R at 14-25.) As such, Peters' "objections" are insufficient to require a de novo review as there is no reference to a perceived error by Judge Peebles. Having found no clear error in the R&R, the court accepts and adopts Judge Peebles' R&R in its entirety.

IV. Conclusion

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles' October 19, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Peters' Petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED in all respects; and it is further

ORDERED that the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order to the parties by mail and certified mail.

IT IS 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.