Peters v. The People of the State of New York

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles' October 19, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 11 ) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Peters Petition (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DENIE D and DISMISSED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Gary L. Sharpe on 1/23/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Report and Recomendation) (ptm) (Copy of Memorandum Decision and Order and Report and Recommendation served on petitioner by certified mail) Modified on 1/23/2012 by ptm served by certified mail.

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ____________________________________ DAVID PETERS, Petitioner, 9:10-cv-116 (GLS/DEP) v. SUPERINTENDENT of Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Respondent. ____________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: FOR THE PETITIONER: David Peters Pro Se 06-A-5776 Sing Sing Correctional Facility 354 Hunter Street Ossining, NY 10562 FOR THE RESPONDENT HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General New York Office 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 PRISCILLA I. STEWARD Assistant Attorney General Gary L. Sharpe Chief Judge MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER I. Introduction Petitioner pro se David Peters brings this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that his current confinement in state custody is in violation of his federal constitutional rights. (Pet., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) filed October 19, 2011, Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed in all respects.1 (See generally R&R, Dkt. No. 11.) Pending are Peters’ objections to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 14.) 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 report and recommendation 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. 04-cv-484, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). In those cases where no party has filed an objection, or only a vague or general objection has been filed, this court reviews the findings and 1 The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is presumed. 2 recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id. III. Discussion Peters’ “objections” consist of factual statements and legal citations which were already considered by Judge Peebles. (See Dkt. No. 14 at 37.) While Peters clearly believes the state courts erred, Judge Peebles found his assertions were either procedurally forfeited and/or lacked merit. (See R&R at 14-25.) As such, Peters’ “objections” are insufficient to require a de novo review as there is no reference to a perceived error by Judge Peebles. Having found no clear error in the R&R, the court accepts and adopts Judge Peebles’ R&R in its entirety. IV. Conclusion WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles’ October 19, 2011 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 11) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Peters’ Petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED in all respects; and it is further ORDERED that the court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and it is further 3 ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this MemorandumDecision and Order to the parties by mail and certified mail. IT IS SO ORDERED. January 23, 2012 Albany, New York 4

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?