Peterson v. New York State Court of Appeals

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 4 Report and Recommendations.. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 2/25/13. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, Report and Recommendation) (tab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________
CARLOS PETERSON,
Plaintiff,

8:12-cv-1873
(GLS/CFH)

v.
NEW YORK STATE COURT OF
APPEALS,
Defendant.
_________________________________
APPEARANCES:
OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Carlos Peterson
Pro Se
08-B-3052
Clinton Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2002
Dannemora, NY 12929
FOR THE DEFENDANT
NO APPEARANCE1
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction

1

Service on the defendant has not yet been permitted as this case
comes to the court as part of the preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. §
1915.

Plaintiff pro se Carlos Peterson brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated by defendant New
York State Court of Appeals. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a ReportRecommendation and Order (R&R) filed December 27, 2012, Magistrate
Judge Christian F. Hummel recommended that the Complaint be
dismissed.2 (See generally R&R, Dkt. No. 4.) Pending are Peterson’s
objections to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 5.) For the reasons that follow, the
R&R is adopted in its entirety.
II. Standard of Review
Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all reportrecommendation and orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge.
If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge’s
findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and
recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No.
Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006).
Where no party has filed an objection, only vague or general objections are
made, or a party resubmits the same papers and arguments already

2

The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and
familiarity therewith is presumed.
2

considered by the magistrate judge, this court reviews the findings and
recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id., at *4-5.
III. Discussion
Peterson’s “objections” consist of statements expressing his
dissatisfaction with the way in which the Court of Appeals reviews state
convictions. (See Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2.) Noticeably absent from Peterson’s
submission is a reference to any errors in Judge Hummel’s decision. (See
id.) As such, Peterson’s “objections” are insufficient to require a de novo
review. Having found no clear error in the R&R, the court accepts and
adopts Judge Hummel’s R&R in its entirety.
IV. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel’s December
27, 2012 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 4) is ADOPTED in
its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Peterson’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum3

Decision and Order to the parties by mail and certified mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 25, 2013
Albany, New York

4