DeVivo v. Mance

Filing 9

ORDER accepting and adopting the 7 Report-Recommendation in whole; ORDERED that, the petition is DENIED and DISMISSED in all respects; A Certificate of Appealability will not be issued. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 9/4/2009. {Order served on petitioner via regular mail} (mgh)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------ANTHONY A. DeVIVO, Petitioner, Vs 9:08-CV-673 UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE, Respondent. ----------------------------------APPEARANCES: ANTHONY A. DeVIVO Petitioner, Pro Se 99-B-1896 Marcy Correctional Facility Box 3600 Marcy, NY 13403 HON. ANDREW M. CUOMO Attorney General of the State of New York Attorney for Respondent Department of Law 100 South Clinton Street Syracuse, NY 13261-7198 DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge ORDER Petitioner, Anthony A. DeVivo, brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. By Report-Recommendation dated July 20, 2009, the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Docket No. 1) be denied. The Magistrate Judge also recommended that a certificate of appealability not issue with respect to any of petitioner's claims. No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed. CHARLES E. ROBERTS, ESQ. Asst. Attorney General OF COUNSEL: Based upon a careful review of the entire file and the recommendations of Magistrate Judge Treece, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 1. The petition is DENIED; 2. The petition is DISMISSED in all respects; 3. A Certificate of Appealability will not be issued. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 4, 2009 Utica, 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?