Peters v. The People of the State of New York
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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
SUPERINTENDENT of Sing Sing
FOR THE PETITIONER:
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
New York, NY 10271
PRISCILLA I. STEWARD
Assistant Attorney General
Gary L. Sharpe
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
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
The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is
recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id.
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.
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
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
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?