Martinez v. Heffard

Filing 37

OPINION AND ORDER: As Martinez failed to file objections, the Court reviewed Judge Netburn's Reports for clear error and found none. Accordingly, the Reports are hereby ADOPTED and Martinez's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 4/21/2015) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (kko)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
:
FREDDY MARTINEZ,
:
:
Petitioner, :
:
-v:
:
:
HOWARD HUFFARD, as Warden, Federal
Correctional Institute – Otisville,
:
:
Respondent. :
------------------------------------------------------------ X

13-CV-1854 (JPO)
OPINION AND ORDER

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:
Petitioner Freddy Martinez brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that the Bureau of Prisons erred in reducing the amount good conduct
time (“GCT”) that he is eligible to receive.
On February 4, 2014, the Honorable Sarah Netburn, United States Magistrate Judge,
issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that Martinez is not eligible to receive the full
amount of GCT because he withdrew from his prison’s literacy program. (Dkt. No. 17.) Judge
Netburn also requested supplemental briefing on Martinez’s separate equal protection and GCT
miscalculation claims. In a second Report and Recommendation dated July 8, 2014, she
recommended that the Court dismiss these claims and that Martinez’s habeas petition be denied.
(Dkt. No. 30.) Martinez did not file any objections.
On November 11, 2014, this Court requested supplemental briefing from Respondent as
to whether Martinez had a cognizable liberty interest in the status of being able to earn 54 days
of GCT, and if so, whether he was afforded adequate due process when he was deprived of that
interest. (Dkt. No. 31.) Respondent filed the requested briefing on December 19, 2014. (Dkt.
No. 34.)
1

The district court is entitled to “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Portions of the
magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations to which objection is made, if any, are reviewed
de novo by the district court. Id. Where a party does not object, or files objections of a merely
“general” or “conclusory” nature, courts review reports for clear error. Legall v. Colvin, No. 13CV-1426 (VN), 2014 WL 4494753, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2014); see also Batista v. Walker,
No. 94-CV-2826 (SS), 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.”) (brackets and internal quotation
marks omitted).
As Martinez failed to file objections, the Court reviewed Judge Netburn’s Reports for
clear error and found none. Accordingly, the Reports are hereby ADOPTED and Martinez’s
petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 21, 2015
New York, New York
____________________________________
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge

2

Copy mailed to Pro Se party by chambers.

3