Wright v. Superintendent
ORDER adopting 51 Report and Recommendations. The petition (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DENIED AND DISMISSED as time-barred. No Certificate of Appealability shall issue because petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 2/25/17. (Copy served on petitioner via regular mail)(rjb, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LEON F. WRIGHT,
Leon F. Wright
Coxsackie Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 999
Coxsackie, NY 12051
Petitioner, pro se
Paul B. Lyons, Esq.
Hon. Eric T. Schneiderman
Office of New York State Attorney General
New York, NY 10271
Attorney for Respondent
Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge:
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
Petitioner Leon F. Wright, a New York State inmate, commenced this habeas corpus
action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October 23, 2012. Dkt. No. 1. Respondent filed a response to
the petition on April 15, 2013. Dkt. Nos. 12-14. His supplemental response was filed on August
29, 2016. Dkt. No. 42. This matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse
Wiley Dancks who, on December 16, 2016, issued an Order and Report-Recommendation
recommending that the petition be denied and dismissed on the grounds that it is time-barred,
and recommending that a certificate of appealability not issue. Dkt. No. 51. Magistrate Judge
Dancks advised the parties that under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), they had fourteen days within
which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to object to the report within
fourteen days would preclude appellate review. Dkt. No. 51, p. 23. No objections to the ReportRecommendation have been filed.
As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing
objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See
Petersen v. Astrue, 2 F. Supp. 3d 223, 228-29 (N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory
committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed Judge Dancks’ thorough ReportRecommendation for clear error and found none, the Report-Recommendation is adopted in its
For these reasons, it is
ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 51) is ADOPTED in its
entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED AND DISMISSED as timebarred; and it is further
ORDERED that no Certificate of Appealability shall issue because petitioner failed to
make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” as required by 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with
the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2017
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?