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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?