Thompson v. Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: I have reviewed the record and find no clear error in Judge Bloom's recommendation that the petition be denied. Since the petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and to close the case. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 12/13/2017. (Greene, Donna)
FILED
IN CLERK'S OFFICE
-LERK'S OFFI'
US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.
RICT COURT!
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
* DEC 1 3 2017
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BROOKLYN OFFICE
X
SHERWIN THOMPSON,
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER
- against-
i4cv-01711(AMD)
(LB)
SUPERINTENDENT,SING SING
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Respondent.
X
ANN M.DONNELLY,District Judge.
The pro se petitioner, Sherwin Thompson, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2010 New York conviction for Manslaughter in the
First Degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 125.20), Criminal Facilitation in the Second Degree(N.Y. Penal
Law § 115.05), and two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (N.Y.
Penal Law §§ 265.03(l)(b),(3)). The petitioner claims that the prosecutor made unfair appeals to
his jury's sympathy and that the trial judge made a variety of errors, including permitting the
admission of gruesome photographs, allowing the prosecutor to impeach her own witness and to
introduce an eye-witness' show-up identification, and permitting another prosecutor to testify
about the petitioner's statements in a proffer session. The petitioner also argues that his appellate
lawyer was ineffective.
I referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a report and recommendation.
On November 21, 2017, Judge Bloom issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report and
Recommendation("R&R"),recommending that I deny the petition in its entirety. The R&R was
mailed to the petitioner on the same day. Since then, no party has objected to the R&R, and the
time to do so has passed.
A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistratejudge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To accept those portions
of the R&R to which no timely objection has been made,"a district court need only satisfy itself
that there is no clear error on the face of the record."
v. N. Am. Globex Fund LP., 823
F.Supp.2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)(internal quotation marks omitted).
I have reviewed the record and find no clear error in Judge Bloom's recommendation that
the petition be denied. Since the petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right," a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The
Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
s/Ann M. Donnelly
Ann
Donnelly
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 13, 2017
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?