Silva v. Graham

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The Court has reviewed Judge Bloom's unopposed R&R and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Ordered by Judge Margo K. Brodie on 2/1/2017. (Hawkins, Salah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------THOMAS D. SILVA,
Petitioner,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
13-CV-3314 (MKB) (LB)

v.
HAROLD D. GRAHAM,
Respondent.
--------------------------------------------------------------MARGO K. BRODIE, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Thomas D. Silva, proceeding pro se, filed the above-captioned petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 6, 2013. (Pet. for Writ of Habeas
Corpus , Docket Entry No. 1.) Petitioner’s claim arose from a 2009 conviction in New York
State Supreme Court, Kings County, following a bench trial convicting Petitioner of
manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the second degree. (Id. at 1.) On March 12, 2014,
the Court referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a report and recommendation
in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). (Order dated Mar. 12, 2014.) By report and
recommendation dated August 14, 2014, Judge Bloom recommended that the Court deny the
petition (the “R&R”). (R&R, Docket Entry No. 9.) No party has objected to the R&R.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s recommended ruling “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)(C). “[F]ailure to object timely to a magistrate judge’s report may operate
as a waiver of any further judicial review of the decision, as long as the parties receive clear
notice of the consequences of their failure to object.” Eustache v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,
621 F. App’x 86, 87 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38

(2d Cir. 1997)); see also Almonte v. Suffolk Cty., 531 F. App’x 107, 109 (2d Cir. 2013) (“As a
rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate judge’s report
waives further judicial review of the point.” (quoting Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir.
2003))); Wagner & Wagner, LLP v. Atkinson, Haskins, Nellis, Brittingham, Gladd & Carwile,
P.C., 596 F.3d 84, 92 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[A] party waives appellate review of a decision in a
magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation if the party fails to file timely objections
designating the particular issue.” (first citing Cephas, 328 F.3d at 107; and then citing Mario v.
P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002))).
The Court has reviewed the unopposed R&R and, finding no clear error, the Court adopts
Judge Bloom’s R&R in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The petition for a writ of
habeas corpus is denied.
SO ORDERED:
s/ MKB
MARGO K. BRODIE
United States District Judge
Dated: February 1, 2017
Brooklyn, New York

2