Hilson v. Graham

Filing 35

OPINION AND ORDER. Because neither party has filed objections to the Report, the Court reviews it for clear error. The Court has carefully reviewed Judge Parker's thorough and well-reasoned Report and finds no error, clear or otherwise. Accordin gly, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety. Graham's motion is GRANTED, and the petition is DISMISSED. Hilson's failure to file objections precludes appellate review of this decision. See Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam). In addition, the Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion, Doc. 16, mail a copy of this Opinion and Order to Hilson, and close the case. It is SO ORD ERED. Re: 32 Report and Recommendations, 16 Motion to Dismiss filed by Harold Graham. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 2/22/2019) (rjm). Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LEROME HILSON,
Petitioner,
-against-

OPINION AND ORDER
17 Civ. 8861 (ER) (KHP)

HAROLD GRAHAM,
Respondent.
Ramos, D.J.:
Lerome Hilson brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254 on the grounds that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Pending before
the Court is Superintendent Harold Graham’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely under 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d). Doc. 16. On July 25, 2018, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a
Report and Recommendation (“Report”), recommending that Graham’s motion be granted and
that the petition be dismissed, and notifying the parties that they had seventeen or fourteen days
from service of the Report to file written objections. Doc. 32. Over seventeen days have since
elapsed, and neither party has filed objections to the Report.
I.

Standard of Review
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation “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). Parties may file specific written objections to the report and
recommendation “[w]ithin fourteen days after being served with a copy.” Id.; see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “3 days are added” to that period when “service is made under Rule 5(b)(2)(C)
(mail), (D) (leaving with the clerk), or (F) (other means consented to).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d).