The opinion of the court was delivered by: Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this habeas corpus action filed by Eric Young ("Petitioner") against David Stallone ("Respondent") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is a Report-Recommendation by United States Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles, recommending that the Petition be denied and dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability not issue. (Dkt. No. 8.) Petitioner has not submitted an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, and the Petition is denied and dismissed in its entirety.
For the sake of brevity, the Court will not repeat the factual background of Petitioner's conviction for attempted burglary in the second degree, but will simply refer the parties to the relevant portions of Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation, which accurately recite that factual background. (Dkt. No. 8 at Part I.)
Generally, in his Petition of June 16, 2010, Petitioner asserts the following two claims:
(1) a claim that his plea was involuntary as he did not understand the nature of the charge nor the consequences of the plea; and (2) a claim that, by advising Petitioner to plead guilty to the charge, trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. (Dkt. No. 1 at 12.)
B. Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation
On December 21, 2011, Magistrate Judge Peebles issued his Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 8.) Generally, in his Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Peebles recommends dismissal of both claims for the following two reasons: (1) Petitioner's first claim lacks merit; and (2) Petitioner's second claim is procedurally barred, because Petitioner failed to raise the claim in state court. (Id. at Part III.)
II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
When a specific objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to a de novo review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). To be "specific," the objection must, with particularity, "identify  the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and  the basis for the objection." N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c).*fn1 When performing such a de novo review, "[t]he judge may . . . receive further evidence. . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, a district court will ordinarily refuse to consider evidentiary material that could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance.*fn2
When only a general objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2),(3); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition.*fn3 Similarly, when an objection merely reiterates the same arguments made by the objecting party in its original papers submitted to the magistrate judge, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation challenged by those arguments to only a clear error review.*fn4 Finally, when no objection is made to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a "clear error" review, "the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id.*fn5
After conducting the appropriate review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the ...