Rios v. Perdue

Filing 15

ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 12 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that Petitioner Luis Rios' Petition (Dkt. No. 1) for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. ORDERED, that no certifi cate 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). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 11/27/13. {order served via regular mail on petitioner}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LUIS RIOS,
Petitioner,
-against-

9:12-CV-0943 (LEK/ATB)

PERDUE, Warden,
Respondent.
___________________________________
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on August 8,
2013, by the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Northern District of New York Local Rule 72.3(c). Dkt. No. 12 (“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. 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. 12) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that Petitioner Luis Rios’s Petition (Dkt. No. 1) for a writ of habeas corpus is
DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further
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);1 and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order upon the parties to this
action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:

November 27, 2013
Albany, New York

1

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (“[Section] 2253(c) permits the
issuance of a [certificate of appealability] only where a petitioner has made a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
2