Poirier v. Graham

Filing 41

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 29 Report and Recommendation. Because Petitioner raises only general or conclusory objections which, at most, amount to his disagreement with Judge Parker's conclusions, the Court reviews the Rep ort for clear error and finds no such error in Judge Parker's thorough and well-reasoned Report. The Court thus adopts the Report in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability should not be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3 ) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444 (1962). This Order resolves docket entry no. 2. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/25/2018) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ama) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------x
GREG POIRIER,
Petitioner,
-v-

No. 17 CV 1457-LTS-KHP

SUPERINTENDANT HAROLD GRAHAM,
Respondent.
-------------------------------------------------------x
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Petitioner Greg Poirier brought this action seeking habeas corpus relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Respondent, Superintendent Harold Graham. (Docket
entry no. 2.) On April 24, 2018, Magistrate Judge Katharine Parker issued a Report and
Recommendation (docket entry no. 29, the “Report”), recommending that the petition be denied
and dismissed in its entirety. On May 30, 2018, the Court received Petitioner’s objections to the
Report. (Docket entry no. 34, the “Objection”). The Court has considered carefully all of the
parties’ submissions in this case.
In reviewing a report and recommendation, 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.A. § 636(b)(1)(c) (LexisNexis 2017). The court must make a de novo determination to the
extent that a party makes specific objections to a magistrate’s findings. United States v. Male
Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). However, to the extent that a party makes only
conclusory or general objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments, the Court will
review the Report strictly for clear error. Pearson–Fraser v. Bell Atl., 2003 WL 43367, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 6, 2003). Similarly, “objections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in

POIRIER - HABEAS.DOCX

VERSION OCTOBER 25, 2018

1

an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the
original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review.” Vega v. Artuz, 2002 WL 31174466,
at * 1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2002). Objections to a Report must be specific and clearly aimed at
particular findings in the magistrate judge’s proposal. Camardo v. General Motors Hourly-Rate
Employees Pension Plan, 806 F. Supp. 380, 381–82 (W.D.N.Y. 1992).
Petitioner’s objections in this matter are an effort to reiterate his earlier arguments
and are presented in conclusory fashion. With respect to Petitioner’s first and second asserted
grounds for relief based upon diplomatic immunity and the lawfulness of his arrest, the
Objection does not address the Report’s recommended conclusion that these grounds for relief
are unexhausted and procedurally barred. With respect to Petitioner’s third and fourth grounds
for relief related to prosecutorial misconduct, the Objection cites the same evidence presented in
Petitioner’s original papers and argues that “it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree,” on
the basis of that evidence, with the Report’s conclusion that it would not have been objectively
unreasonable for the Appellate Division to find that the prosecutor’s behavior did not so infect
the trial with unfairness as to deprive Petitioner of due process. Because Petitioner raises only
general or conclusory objections which, at most, amount to his disagreement with Judge Parker’s
conclusions, the Court reviews the Report for clear error and finds no such error in Judge
Parker’s thorough and well-reasoned Report. The Court thus adopts the Report in its entirety for
the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
denied.
Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, a certificate of appealability should not be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would

POIRIER - HABEAS.DOCX

VERSION OCTOBER 25, 2018

2

not be taken in good faith. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444 (1962). This
Order resolves docket entry no. 2. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to enter judgment
accordingly and close this case.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
October 25, 2018
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
United States District Judge

Copy mailed to:
Greg Poirier
10-A-2163
Auburn Correctional Facility
P.O. Box 618
Auburn, NY 13021

POIRIER - HABEAS.DOCX

VERSION OCTOBER 25, 2018

3