Reyes v. LaValley

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, request to stay the case, and request to amend the petition are denied as set forth in the enclosed Memorandum & Ord er adopting Magistrate Judge Bloom's Report and Recommendation. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this ruling would not be taken in good faith. The clerk of court is respectfully requested to close this case. Respondent shall serve a copy of this Memorandum & Order on petitioner and note such service on the docket by September 12, 2013. Ordered by Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto on 9/10/2013. (Raghunathan, Abhishek)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
WILLIAM REYES,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Petitioner,
-against-

10-cv-2524(KAM)(LB)

THOMAS LAVALLEY, Superintendent,
Clinton Correctional Facility,
Respondent.
-----------------------------------X
MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:
On June 1, 2010, pro se petitioner William Reyes
(“petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Habeas Corpus, 6/1/2010.)

(ECF No. 1, Petition for Writ of

On August 31, 2011, this court

referred the case to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a Report
and Recommendation.

(Order Referring Case, 8/31/2011.)

Magistrate Judge Bloom issued her Report and Recommendation on
April 9, 2012, in which she recommended that petitioner’s
application for a writ of habeas corpus, request to stay the
case, and to amend the petition should be denied.
Report and Recommendation, 4/9/2012 (“R&R”).)

(ECF No. 11,

Petitioner

requested an extension of time to file a reply, which Magistrate
Judge Bloom granted, giving petitioner until May 21, 2012, to
file objections.

(ECF Nos. 12-13.)

Petitioner filed his

objections to the April 9, 2012 Report and Recommendation on May
(ECF No. 14, Objection, 5/25/2012 (“Objections”).) 1

25, 2012.

DISCUSSION
I.

Legal Standard
To the extent that a party makes specific and timely

written objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and
recommendations, the district court must review de novo “those
portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.”

28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
“However, when a party makes only conclusory or general
objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the
Court reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear
error.”

Walker v. Vaughan, 216 F. Supp. 2d 290, 292 (S.D.N.Y.

2002) (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also Ortiz
v. Barkley, 558 F. Supp. 2d 444, 451 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (“Reviewing
courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error
where objections are merely perfunctory responses, argued in an
attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same
arguments set forth in the original petition.”) (internal
quotation and citation omitted).

1

Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the “prison mailbox rule,” which
deems the papers of a petitioner who is in custody to be filed as of the date
he gave the papers to prison authorities for mailing. See Noble v. Kelly,
246 F.3d 93, 97 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)).
For the purposes of the instant Order, the court will assume that petitioner
gave prison authorities his submission on or before May 21, 2012.

2

The objections of parties appearing pro se are
“generally accorded leniency” and should be construed “to raise
the strongest arguments that they suggest.”

Milano v. Astrue,

No. 05 Civ. 6527, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74488, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 26, 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
“Nonetheless, even a pro se party’s objections to a Report and
Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular
findings in the magistrate’s proposal, such that no party be
allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a
prior argument.”

Pinkney v. Progressive Home Health Servs., No.

06 Civ. 5023, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55034, at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y.
July 21, 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted), aff’d,
367 F. App’x 210 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order).

Upon review,

“[t]he district judge 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).
In reviewing a petition for habeas corpus relief, a
federal court may only consider whether a person is in custody
pursuant to a state court judgment in violation of the United
States Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act of 1996 requires federal courts to apply a
deferential standard when conducting habeas corpus review of
3

state court decisions.
(2010).

Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855, 1862

A petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus relief if he

can show the state court decision “was contrary to, or involved
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”

28

U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
II.

Application
The relevant factual and procedural background of this

case is set forth in Magistrate Judge Bloom’s detailed Report
and Recommendation.

(R&R at 1-6.)

In his Objections,

petitioner argues that his constitutional rights were violated
because:
(1)

His lineup was unduly suggestive.
2.)

(Objections at

(2)

Police failed to notify and/or provide counsel as
required by the Sixth Amendment. (Id. at 10.)

(3)

The trial court erred in denying a motion to
sever three robberies. (Id. at 13.)

(4)

The evidence at trial was legally insufficient to
establish his identity as the perpetrator. (Id.
at 15.)

(5)

The consecutive sentences were unduly harsh and
excessive. (Id. at 17.)

A review of petitioner’s purported objections shows
that they consist almost entirely of restatements of
petitioner’s original allegations rather than specific
objections to the R&R.

Indeed, other than the title of his
4

submission, petitioner does not even refer to Magistrate Judge
Bloom’s Report and Recommendation, let alone any portion of it.
(See generally id.)

Having reviewed those portions of

Magistrate Judge Bloom’s thorough and well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation, the court finds no clear error.

Still, the

court has also considered the foregoing objections and
undertaken a de novo review of the R&R, the underlying pleadings
and factual record upon which it is based, and the relevant
legal authorities.

Having conducted such review, and upon

careful consideration of the plaintiffs’ objections, the
objections are overruled.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, petitioner’s
objections are overruled and Magistrate Judge Bloom’s wellreasoned and thorough Report and Recommendation is adopted in
its entirety as the opinion of the court.

Accordingly,

petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254, request to stay the case, and request to amend
the petition are denied.

Because petitioner has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, a
certificate of appealability will not issue.
§ 2253.

See 28 U.S.C.

The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)

that any appeal from this ruling would not be taken in good
faith.

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962).
5

Respondent shall serve a copy of this Order on petitioner and
note such service on the docket by September 12, 2013.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 10, 2013
Brooklyn, New York

/s/
Kiyo A. Matsumoto
United States District Judge
Eastern District of New York

6