United States District Court, N.D. New York
September 25, 2014
ANPU UNNEFER AMEN, also known as James Taylor, Petitioner,
THOMAS LAVALLEY, Respondent.
ANPU UNNEFER AMEN, Collins, New York, Petitioner pro se.
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, PRISCILLA I. STEWARD, AAG, New York, New York, Attorneys for Respondent.
FREDERICK J. SCULIN, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction. See Dkt. No. 1. On September 30, 2013, Magistrate Judge Dancks issued a Report-Recommendation and Order, in which she recommended that the Court deny and dismiss the petition. See Dkt. No. 25. Petitioner filed objections to those recommendations. See Dkt. No. 26.
In reviewing a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the district court may decide to accept, reject or modify the recommendations therein. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court conducts a de novo review of the magistrate judge's recommendations to which a party objects. See Pizzaro v. Bartlett, 776 F.Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). ""If, however, the party makes only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error."'" Salmini v. Astrue, No. 3:06-CV-458, 2009 WL 1794741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (quoting [ Farid v. Bouey, 554 F.Supp.2d 301] at 306 [(N.D.N.Y. 2008)] (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F.Supp.2d 672, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2007))). Finally, even if the parties file no objections, the court must ensure that the face of the record contains no clear error. See Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quotation omitted).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Dancks' September 30, 2013 Report-Recommendation and Order in light of Petitioner's objections and concludes that Petitioner's arguments are without merit. Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' September 30, 2013 Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Petitioner's petition is DENIED and DISMISSED in its entirety; and the Court further
ORDERS that no certificate of appealability shall issue in this case because Petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close this case; and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.