The opinion of the court was delivered by: Roslynn R. Mauskopf, United States District Judge.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Andre Rand has petitioned this court pro se for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging federal constitutional claims arising out of his December 8, 2004 conviction for the kidnapping of Holly Ann Hughes for which Rand is serving a sentence of 25 years to life, to run consecutive to a sentence of 25 years to life arising out of his 1987 conviction for kidnapping Jennifer Schweiger. (Grady Aff. (Doc. No. 5) at 2.) On December 6, 2010, this Court referred the petition to the honorable Robert M. Levy, U.S.M.J. On May 3, 2012, Judge Levy issued a Report and Recommendation ("Report"), recommending that all of Rand's claims be dismissed. Rand filed timely objections to the Report.
A district court applies a de novo standard of review to those portions of a report to which a specific objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). However, "where objections are merely perfunctory responses, argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition, reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error." Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal quotations omitted).
Since Rand is proceeding pro se, this Court must read his filings to "raise the strongest arguments that they suggest." Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996); see, e.g., Schachter v. Fischer, 05 Civ. 9896 (KMW)(GWG), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94965, at *1--2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2007). Although Rand's objections merely repeat his original claims, and do not address any specific errors in the Report, out of an abundance of caution this Court has reviewed Rand's claims de novo, and finds them wholly without merit for the reasons set forth by the magistrate judge.*fn1
Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety.
For the reasons herein, Rand's habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED. The Court hereby DENIES a certificate of appealability as Rand failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Luciadore v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2000). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss this petition, enter judgment accordingly, send a copy of this Order to petitioner, and close the case.
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF United States ...