Amen v. Lavalley

Filing 27

ORDER: ORDERED, that Magistrate Judge Dancks' September 30, 2013 25 Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. ORDERED, that Petitioner's petition is DENIED and DISMISSED in its entirety . ORDERED, that no certificate of appealability shall issue in this case because Petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. on 9/25/14. (served on petitioner by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________________
ANPU UNNEFER AMEN, also known as
James Taylor,
Petitioner,
v.

9:10-CV-1028
(FJS/TWD)

THOMAS LAVALLEY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

ANPU UNNEFER AMEN
07-R-3460
Collins Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 340
Collins, New York 14034
Petitioner pro se
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10271
Attorneys for Respondent

PRISCILLA I. STEWARD, AAG

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
Petitioner commenced this habeas corpus proceeding, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
challenging his conviction. See Dkt. No. 1. On September 30, 2013, Magistrate Judge Dancks
issued a Report-Recommendation and Order, in which she recommended that the Court deny and
dismiss the petition. See Dkt. No. 25. Petitioner filed objections to those recommendations. See
Dkt. No. 26.

In reviewing a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the district court may decide to
accept, reject or modify the recommendations therein. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The court
conducts a de novo review of the magistrate judge's recommendations to which a party objects.
See Pizzaro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). "'"If, however, the party makes
only conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates his original arguments, the Court
reviews the Report and Recommendation only for clear error."'" Salmini v. Astrue, No. 3:06-CV458, 2009 WL 1794741, *1 (N.D.N.Y. June 23, 2009) (quoting [Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d
301] at 306 [(N.D.N.Y. 2008)] (quoting McAllan v. Von Essen, 517 F. Supp. 2d 672, 679
(S.D.N.Y. 2007))). Finally, even if the parties file no objections, the court must ensure that the
face of the record contains no clear error. See Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d
163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quotation omitted).
The Court has conducted a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Dancks' September 30,
2013 Report-Recommendation and Order in light of Petitioner's objections and concludes that
Petitioner's arguments are without merit.1 Accordingly, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Dancks' September 30, 2013 Report-Recommendation
and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Petitioner's petition is DENIED and DISMISSED in its entirety; and the
Court further
ORDERS that no certificate of appealability shall issue in this case because Petitioner
has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28
1

The Court notes, by way of example, that Sudler v. City of New York, 689 F.3d 159 (2d
Cir. 2012), on which Petitioner relies as a basis for one of his arguments is factually and legally
distinguishable from this case.
-2-

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and the Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close this case; and the
Court further
ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order on the parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2014
Syracuse, New York

-3-