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.

Williams v. Lempke

United States District Court, S.D. New York

September 29, 2014

ROBERT WILLIAMS, Petitioner,
v.
J. B. LEMPKE, Respondent.

ORDER

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, District Judge.

Robert Williams, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Dkt. No. 1) On August 1, 2011, this Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for a Report and Recommendation ("R & R"). (Dkt. No. 9) On June 1, 2012, Judge Cott issued a 41-page R & R recommending that this Court deny the petition in its entirety, and that the Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). (Dkt. No. 16)

The R & R was sent to the parties on June 1, 2012. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), "[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations."[1] 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 72(b)(2) (stating that "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations"). To date, this Court has received no objections to the R & R.

In evaluating a Magistrate Judge's R & R, a district court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a timely objection has been made to the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, "[the district court judge] shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Razo v. Astrue, No. 04 Civ. 1348(PAC)(DF), 2008 WL 2971670, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2008) (citing Pizarro v. Bartlett, 776 F.Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y.1991)). However, "[f]or uncontested portions of the R & R, the court need only review the face of the record for clear error." Razo, 2008 WL 2971670, at *3 (citing Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)). Because no timely objections have been filed, this Court will review the R & R for clear error.

Having conducted a review of the R & R, the Court finds that the Report is not clearly erroneous and, in fact, is in conformity with the law. Accordingly, the Report's recommendations are adopted in their entirety: Williams's Petition is denied, and no certificate of appealability will issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Petitioner Robert Williams, 08-A-4386, Five Points Correctional Facility, P.O. Box 119, Romulus, NY 14541.

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.