Pack v. Warden, Federal Correctional Institution at Ray Brook

Filing 7

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice. ORDERED, that, because the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a " ;substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability shall issue with respect to any of Petitioner's claims. ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court close this case. Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 6/26/14. (served on petitioner by regular mail) (alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANTHONY PACK,
Petitioner,
-against-

9:11-CV-0908 (LEK/RFT)

WARDEN, Federal Correctional
Institution at Ray Brook,
Respondent.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 28,
2014, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 6 (“Report-Recommendation”).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings
and recommendations.” FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). “If no objections are filed . . .
reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error.” Edwards v. Fischer,
414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir.
2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a magistrate
judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301,
306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).
No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. See
Docket. After a thorough review of the Report-Recommendation and the record, the Court has
determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for clear error or manifest

injustice.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 6) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED with prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that, because the Court finds that Petitioner has not made a “substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of
appealability shall issue with respect to any of Petitioner’s claims; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court close this case; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this
action in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

June 26, 2014
Albany, New York

2