Reed v. Graham

Filing 22

ORDER: ORDERS that 20 Magistrate Judge Hummel's May 24, 2017 Report-Recommendation and Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. ORDERS that Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 2254, see Dkt. No. 1 , is DENIED. ORDERS that no Certificate of Appealability shall be issued with regard to any of Petitioner's claims because he has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right&q uot; as 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) requires. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (providing that "[a] certificate of appealability may issue... only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right"). Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 7/7/17. {order served via regular mail on petitioner}(nas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________________________
EDWARD REED,
Petitioner,
v.

9:15-CV-1169
(FJS/CFH)

HAROLD GRAHAM, Superintendent,
Auburn Correctional Facility,
Respondent.
________________________________________________
APPEARANCES

OF COUNSEL

EDWARD REED
07-A-0202
Auburn Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 618
Auburn, New York 13021
Petitioner pro se
OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK
STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL
120 Broadway
New York, New York 10271
Attorneys for Respondent

PAUL B. LYONS, AAG

SCULLIN, Senior Judge
ORDER
On September 30, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254, challenging a judgment of conviction rendered on January 3, 2007, after a jury trial
in Onondaga County Court. See Dkt. No. 1. Respondent filed an answer to the petition as well as a
memorandum of law in opposition to the petition and the relevant state-court records. See Dkt. Nos.
11-13. Petitioner filed a traverse in further support of his petition. See Dkt. No. 14.

The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Hummel for a report and
recommendation. In a Report-Recommendation and Order dated May 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge
Hummel recommended that the Court deny the petition and not issue a Certificate of Appealability.
See, generally Dkt. No. 20. Although the Court granted Petitioner's request for an extension of time
to file objections, see Dkt. No. 21, he did not file any.
When a party does not object to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the court
reviews that report-recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. See Linares v. Mahunik,
No. 9:05-CV-625, 2009 WL 3165660, *10 (N.D.N.Y. July 16, 2009) (citation and footnote
omitted). After conducting that review, "the Court may 'accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the . . . recommendations made by the magistrate judge.'" Id. (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C)).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Hummel's May 24, 2017 Report-Recommendation
and Order for clear error and manifest injustice; and, finding none, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Magistrate Judge Hummel's May 24, 2017 Report-Recommendation and
Order is ACCEPTED in its entirety for the reasons stated therein; and the Court further
ORDERS that Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
see Dkt. No. 1, is DENIED; and the Court further
ORDERS that no Certificate of Appealability shall be issued with regard to any of

-2-

Petitioner's claims because he has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right" as 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) requires. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (providing that "[a] certificate
of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right").

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2017
Syracuse, New York

-3-