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.

Brown v. Fisher

United States District Court, S.D. New York

June 9, 2015

SHAMEI BROWN, Petitioner,
v.
BRIAN FISHER, Commissioner, New York State Department of Corrections, Respondent.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

NELSON S. ROMN, District Judge.

Shamei Brown ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Following a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of multiple counts including murder in the second degree. Now pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") issued by Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), recommending that the petition be denied. Petitioner has filed no objections to the R & R. For the following reasons, the Court adopts the R & R, and the petition is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner was convicted following a jury trial in Westchester County (Bellantoni, J.) of murder in the second degree, attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. Petitioner was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of twenty years to life for the murder conviction, determinate terms of seventeen years and five years post-release supervision on the attempted murder and assault convictions, and a determinate term of fifteen years and five years post-release supervision on the weapons conviction. The determinate terms were imposed to run concurrently with each of the other but consecutive to the indeterminate term imposed on the murder conviction.

The Court presumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case, including the underlying criminal proceedings and Petitioner's appellate challenges to his conviction. Further details can be found in the R & R, which this Court adopts.

Petitioner timely filed the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on or about March 27, 2013. He seeks habeas relief on four grounds: 1) the identification procedures used by police were unduly suggestive; 2) Petitioner's due process rights were violated when the trial court purportedly permitted the introduction of hearsay to support the prosecution's theory as to the Petitioner's motive; 3) the evidence was legally insufficient to support the guilty verdict and the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; and 4) Petitioner's consecutive sentences were illegal.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

A. Habeas Petition Reviewing a State Court Decision

"Habeas review is an extraordinary remedy." Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621 (1998). When a claim has been adjudicated on the merits in a state court proceeding, a prisoner seeking habeas relief must establish that the state court's decision "was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States" or "was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), (d)(2); Cousin v. Bennett, 511 F.3d 334, 337 (2d Cir. 2008). A state court's findings of fact are presumed correct unless the petitioner rebuts the presumption with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); see also Nelson v. Walker, 121 F.3d 828, 833 (2d Cir. 1997).

B. Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

A magistrate judge may "hear a pretrial matter [that is] dispositive of a claim or defense" if so designated by a district court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). In such a case, the magistrate judge "must enter a recommended disposition, including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation,

[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the 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); accord Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2), (3). However, "[t]o accept the report and recommendation of a magistrate, to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record'" Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (emphasis added) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F.Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); accord Feehan v. Feehan, No. 09 Civ. 7016 (DAB), 2011 WL 497776, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2011); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee note (1983 Addition, Subdivision (b)) ("When no ...


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.