United States District Court, W.D. New York
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
petitioner, Andre Juste, is a civil immigration detainee
currently held at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. On
May 3, 2016, he filed this petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that he is
being detained in violation of the Constitution or laws of
the United States. Docket Item 1.
August 9, 2016, this Court referred this matter to United
States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy. Docket Item 12.
On February 14, 2017, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and
Recommendation (the "R&R"), in which he
recommended that the petition "be denied, including
petitioner's request for injunctive relief and for
attorney's fees and costs under the [Equal Access to
Justice Act], without prejudice to his right to file another
habeas petition if his continued detention becomes violative
of the Constitution or otherwise unlawful." Docket Item
48 at 7. Judge McCarthy further recommended that eleven
motions filed by the petitioner (Docket Items 7, 28, 30, 35,
36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, 46) "be denied as moot, but
without prejudice to his right to seek this relief in any
future habeas actions." Docket Item 48 at 7-8.
respect to dispositive matters, this Court "must
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's
disposition that has been properly objected to" and
"may accept, reject, or modify the recommended
disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter
to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). With
respect to non-dipositive matters, this Court "may
reconsider" the magistrate judge's decision only
"where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's
order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72 requires this Court to review, under
either a de novo or lesser standard, the portions of a report
and recommendation to which no objections are addressed.
See Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
Judge McCarthy issued the R&R, the petitioner filed four
items (Docket Items 49, 50, 51, 52). Docket Item 49, an
"Affidavit, " predates the R&R (i.e., they
apparently crossed in the mail); in any event, it repeats the
petitioner's previous filings. Docket Item 50 is a
photocopy of a "Motion to Release" that the
petitioner previously filed. Compare Docket Items 50
& 44. Docket Item 51 is an "Amended
Complaint" that attempts to assert claims for money
damages and injunctive relief based on alleged violations of
the petitioner's rights. And Docket Item 52 is a motion
for a protective order or other injunctive relief, in which
the petitioner claims that the respondents are attempting to
kill him using nuclear, biological, or chemical agents.
petitioner's recent filings do not properly object to-or
even address-the R&R. Therefore, de novo review is not
required. This Court nevertheless has carefully reviewed the
petitioner's recent submissions as well as the
submissions that resulted in R&R. Based on that review,
this Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. Accordingly,
the petition (Docket Item 1) and the motions docketed as
Docket items 7, 28, 30, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 44, and 46
all are denied without prejudice.
Docket Item 51 (to the extent that the petitioner seeks to
amend the habeas petition herein) and Docket Item 52 are
denied without prejudice to requesting the same relief in the
more-than-a-dozen civil actions that the petitioner currently
has pending in this district. The motion docketed as Docket
Item 50 is terminated because it is a duplicate of Docket
Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that
any appeal from this decision would not be taken in good
faith, and leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in forma
pauperis is denied. The Clerk of Court shall take all steps
necessary to close this case.
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d)
provides for the automatic substitution of public officers
who are parties in an official capacity. Although the Rule
states that "[l]ater proceedings should be in the
substituted party's name, " it also makes clear that
"any misnomer not affecting the parties' substantial
rights must be disregarded." Because the petitioner has
more than a dozen other civil cases pending in this
district-and in order to limit the chances of confusion-the
caption of this order conforms to the electronic docket and