DeFreitas v. Kirkpatrick
ORDER: ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31 ) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED, that DeFreitas's Petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED. ORDERED, that no certificate of appealability ("COA" ;) shall issue in this case because DeFreitas has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and any further request for a COA must be addressed to the Court of Appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b). Signed by Senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn on 5/30/17. (served on petitioner by regular mail) (alh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 3,
2017, by the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 31 (“Report-Recommendation”).
Within fourteen days after a party has been served with a copy of a magistrate judge’s
report-recommendation, the party “may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or
if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to
the magistrate judge, a district court need review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for
clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18,
2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306–07, 306 n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also
Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011)
(“[E]ven a pro se party’s objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and
clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate’s proposal, such that no party be allowed a
second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument.”). “A [district] judge . . . may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
No objections were filed in the allotted time period. Docket. Thus, the Court has
reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 31) is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that DeFreitas’s Petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED; and it
ORDERED, that no certificate of appealability (“COA”) shall issue in this case because
DeFreitas has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right”
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and any further request for a COA must be addressed to the
Court of Appeals under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b); and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in
accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
May 30, 2017
Albany, New York
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?