Adams v. Artus et al

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. The 11 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky dated 2/24/12 is adopted in its entirety. Objections to the Report and Recommendation were due within 14 days of receipt. To date. no objections have been filed with the Court. Accordingly, petitioner's 7 motion to amend the petition and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus are denied. So Ordered by Judge Sandra L. Townes on 3/29/2012. C/M to petitioner. (Manuel, Germaine)

~" -~~ ;;~ f~
iNC•.:_,.-/.·.

u

::-~

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

--------------------------------------------------------------)(

BROOKLY~: OFFICE

DAMIEN ADAMS,
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
-against-

09-CV-1941 (SLT) (VVP)

DALE ARTUS and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF NEW YORK,
Respondents.

--------------------------------------------------------------)(
TOWNES, United States District Judge:
Damien Adams ("Petitioner") filed the instant pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
("Petition") on May 4, 2009 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for purposes of challenging his
conviction for first-degree manslaughter following a jury trial in the New York State Supreme
Court. On December 4, 2009, this Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Viktor V.
Pohorelsky for a report and recommendation ("R&R"). Subsequently, Petitioner filed a motion
to amend the Petition on January 7, 2010 to add a claim for ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel. On February 24,2012, Judge Pohorelsky issued an R&R recommending that this Court
deny the Petition and the motion to amend. This Court adopts Judge Pohorelsky's R&R in its
entirety.
A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain
motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and a
recommendation as to the disposition of the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen
days of service ofthe recommendation, any party may file written objections to the magistrate's
report. See id. Upon de novo review of those portions of the record to which objections were
made, the district court judge may affirm or reject the recommendation. See id.
The Court is not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate
judge as to those portions of the R&R to which no objections have been made. See Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985). In addition, failure to file
timely objections may waive the right to appeal this Court's order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Small v. Sec y ofHealth & Human Servs., 892 F .2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).
In the instant case, objections to the R&R were due within fourteen days of receipt of the
R&R, which was mailed to Petitioner on February 24, 2012. To date, no objections have been
filed with this Court. Upon review, this Court affirms and adopts the R&R of Judge Pohorelsky
in its entirety. Accordingly, Petitioner's motion to amend the petition and his petition for a writ
of habeas corpus are denied.

SO ORDERED.

s/ SLT

I SANDRA L. TOWNES
United States District Judge
Dated: 'frl~J..f. 2012
Brooklyn, New York

2