Salemo v. USA

Filing 40

ORDER for 37 Report and Recommendations, the Court finds itself in complete agreement with Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's Report and Recommendation and dismisses the action with prejudice. In addition, because petitioner has not made a subs tantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Moreover, the Court certifies that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, as petitioner's claim lacks any arguable basis in law or fact, and therefore permission to proceed in forma ris is also denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (3); see also Seimon v. Emigrant Savs. Bank (In re Seimon), 421 F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir. 2005). The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to enter final judgment. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 3/9/2017) (anc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GEORGE PAUL SALEMO,
Petitioner,

14-cv-1868 (JSR) (GWG)
ll-cr-65(JSR)

-vORDER
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
------------------------------------- x

JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
Before the Court is the motion by defendant and now pro se
petitioner George Salemo challenging his conviction for wire fraud. On
May 17, 2016, Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued a Report
and Recommendation in the above-captioned matter recommending that the
Court dismiss Mr. Salerno's prose petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 2255. Although Mr. Salemo chose not to file any objections to
the Report and Recommendation, the Court has reviewed the underlying
record de novo.
Having done so, the Court finds itself in complete agreement with
Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's Report and Recommendation and dismisses
the action with prejudice. In addition, because petitioner has not
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a
certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C.

§

2253.

Moreover, the Court certifies that any appeal from this Order would
not be taken in good faith,
basis in law or fact,

as petitioner's claim lacks any arguable

and therefore permission to proceed in forma

pauperis is also denied. See 28 U.S.C.
1

§

1915(a) (3); see also Seimon

v. Emigrant Savs. Bank (In re Seimon), 421 F.3d 167, 169 (2d Cir.
2005). The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to enter final
Judgment.

J~«S.D.J.

SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, NY
March _f, 2017

2