Fudge v. LaClair

Filing 21

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks' Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1 ) in this matter is DENIED and DISMISSED. ORDERED that a c ertificate of appealability not issue with respect to any of the claims set forth in the Petition, because Petitioner has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Signed by Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 2/28/17.{order served via regular mail and certified mail on petitioner} (nas, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_____________________________________
ANTHONY FUDGE,
Petitioner,
9:13-CV-1370
(GTS/TWD)

v.
D. LaCLAIR, Superintendent,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

ANTHONY FUDGE
Petitioner, Pro Se
1208 Hawley Avenue
Syracuse, New York 13203
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Respondent
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10271

MICHELLE ELAINE MAEROV, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this habeas corpus proceeding filed by Anthony Fudge
(“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is the Report-Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks recommending that the Petition be denied and
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and that a certificate of appealability not issue.
(Dkt. No. 19.) Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation and the
deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)

After carefully reviewing all of the papers in this action, including Magistrate Judge
Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear error in the ReportRecommendation.1 Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper legal standards, accurately
recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 19, Parts II through IV.)
As a result, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation in
its entirety for the reasons stated therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) in this matter is DENIED and DISMISSED;
and it is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability not issue with respect to any of the claims
set forth in the Petition, because Petitioner has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Dated: February 28, 2017
Syracuse, New York
____________________________________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge

1

When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that
report-recommendation to only a “clear error” review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory
Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear error review, “the court need
only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a
magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are
not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2