Portis v. Kirkpatrick
DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19 ) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1 ) is DENIED and DISMISSED. ORDERED that a certificate of appeal ability 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 11/17/16. (served on petitioner by regular mail)(alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL KIRKPATRICK, Superintendent,
Clinton Correctional Facility,
JAMEL PORTIS, 12-A-1694
Petitioner, Pro Se
Clinton Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 2002
Dannemora, New York 12929
HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Respondent
New York, New York 10271
ALYSON J. GILL, 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 pro se by Jamel Portis
(“Petitioner”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 arising from 2012 conviction for Second Degree
Criminal Conspiracy in Albany County Supreme Court, is a Report-Recommendation dated
October 12, 2016, of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter recommending that
Petitioner’s Petition be denied and dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability not issue.
(Dkt. No. 19.) Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation and the time
in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing all of the
papers in this action, the Court can find no clear error1 in Magistrate Judge Baxter’s ReportRecommendation: Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the proper legal standards, accurately
recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 19, at Part II-IV.) As a
result, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation in its
entirety for the reasons stated therein.
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) 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: November 17, 2016
Syracuse, New York
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
United States District Judge
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).
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?