Borges v. Bradt

Filing 15

DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) in this matter is DENIED and DISMISSED in its entirety. ORDERED t hat a certificate of appealability shall 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 Judge Glenn T. Suddaby on 1/7/15. (served on petitioner by regular mail)(alh, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_______________________________________
CESAR A. BORGES,
Petitioner,
9:14-CV-0060
(GTS/ATB)

v.
MARK BRADT, Superintendent,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
APPEARANCES:

OF COUNSEL:

CESAR A. BORGES, 04-B-1560
Petitioner, Pro Se
Five Points Correctional Facility
Caller Box 119
Romulus, New York 14541
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Respondent
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10271

ALYSON J. GILL, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General

GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge
DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this habeas corpus proceeding filed pro se by Cesar A.
Borges (“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is a Report-Recommendation by United
States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter 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. 14.) Petitioner has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation and the time
in which to do so has expired.

When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that reportrecommendation 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).
Here, based upon a careful review of this matter, the Court can find no clear error with
Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 14.) Magistrate Judge Baxter
employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to
those facts. (Id.) As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety
for the reasons stated therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) 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 in
its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall 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: January 7, 2015
Syracuse, New York

2