Santana v. Capra

Filing 31

MEMORANDUM & ORDER for 30 Report and Recommendations: This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's thorough and well-reasoned Report, and finds that it is not erroneous on its face. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report in its entirety. The parties' failure to file written objections precludes appellate review of this decision. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and mark this case as closed. (Signed by Judge William H. Pauley, III on 9/12/2017) (jwh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALEXANDER SANTANA,
Petitioner,
-againstMICHAEL CAPRI, Superintendent, Sing
Sing Correctional Facility,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

15cv2818
MEMORANDUM & ORDER

WILLIAM H. PAULEY III, District Judge:
Petitioner Alexander Santana filed this habeas proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 to challenge his 2010 conviction for first degree manslaughter, alleging ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. In June 2015, this Court referred this matter to then-Magistrate Judge
Frank Maas for a Report and Recommendation. This proceeding was subsequently stayed
pending the exhaustion of Santana’s claims in state court. (See ECF No. 7.) Thereafter, with the
retirement of Magistrate Judge Maas, this matter was randomly reassigned to Magistrate Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein issued his Report and Recommendation (the
“Report”) on August 11, 2017, finding that none of the grounds for relief raised by Santana
should be granted. The Report recommends that this Court deny Santana’s petition. No
objections to the Report have been filed.
A district court “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)(1)(C). In reviewing a
Report and Recommendation to which no objection has been lodged, a court “need only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Simms v. Graham, No. 09-CV-1059,

2011 WL 6072400, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2011).
This Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Gorenstein’s thorough and wellreasoned Report, and finds that it is not erroneous on its face. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report in its entirety. The parties’ failure to file written
objections precludes appellate review of this decision. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155
(1985). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate all pending motions and mark this case as
closed.
Dated: September 12, 2017
New York, New York
SO ORDERED:

_______________________________
WILLIAM H. PAULEY III
U.S.D.J.

-2-