Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cobaugh v. Kaplan

United States District Court, Second Circuit

December 11, 2013

SUSAN M. COBAUGH, Petitioner,
v.
SABINA KAPLAN, Superintendent, Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, Respondent.

SUSAN M. COBAUGH Plaintiff, Pro Se Bedford Hills Correctional Facility Bedford Hills, New York,

HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, PAUL B. LYONS, ESQ., Attorney General for the State of New York Assistant Attorney General, Counsel for Respondent, New York, New York.

DECISION and ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, District Judge.

Susan M. Cobaugh ("Petitioner") filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ("the Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on December 7, 2012. (Dkt. No. 1.) By Report-Recommendation dated August 28, 2013, the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and that a certificate of appealability not issue. (Dkt. No. 18.) Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time period in which to do so has expired. For the reasons set forth below, Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety, and the Petition is denied and dismissed in its entirety.

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

For the sake of brevity, the Court will not repeat the factual and procedural background of Petitioner's 2005 conviction for murder in the second degree but will simply refer the parties to the relevant portions of Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation, which accurately recite that factual background. ( See generally Dkt. No. 18.)

A. Petitioner's Claims

In her Petition filed on December 7, 2012, Petitioner asserts the following four claims: (1) a claim that her guilty plea was fraudulently induced by the prosecutor; (2) a claim that her conviction was obtained through "judicial misconduct" because the trial court refused to appoint "capitally qualified" counsel; (3) a claim that trial counsel was ineffective; and (4) a claim that Petitioner has "new evidence" that she is actually innocent. (Dkt. No. 1, at 8-11.)

B. Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation

Generally, in his Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Baxter recommends dismissal of the Petition due to Plaintiff's failure to file her petition within the one-year statute of limitations established by 22 U.S.C. § 2244. (Dkt. No. 18.) More specifically, Magistrate Judge Baxter determined as follows: (1) Petitioner filed her Petition more than two years after the limitations period began to run; (2) under the circumstances, Petitioner is not entitled to statutory or equitable tolling; and (3) Petitioner is not entitled to an exception under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 because she cannot demonstrate "actual innocence." ( Id. at Part II.B.)

II. APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Standard of Review

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 [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection." N.D.N.Y.L.R. 72.1(c).[1] 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.[2] Similarly, a district court will ordinarily refuse to consider argument that could have been, but was not, presented to the magistrate judge in the first instance.[3]

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.[4] 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.[5] 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: ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.