Brooks v. Lee

Filing 22

ORDER ADOPTING R&R for 21 Report and Recommendations: The Court therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety and denies Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. Because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutiona l right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Lucidore v. NY State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2000). In addition, the Court 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, 445 (1962) ("We consider a defendant's good faith...demonstrated when he seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous."); Bu rda Media Inc. v. Blumenberg, 731 F. Supp. 2d 321,322-23 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Coppedge and noting that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter a judgment in favor of Respondent and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 1/21/2017) (lnl)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK . DWAYNE E. BROOKS, Petitioner, Case No. 12-CV-2023 (KMK) (JCM) v. ORDER ADOPTING R&R WILLIAM A. LEE, Respondent. KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge: On March 16, 2012, Petitioner Dwayne E. Brooks ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 2254, challenging his October 31, 2007 judgment of conviction in New York state court and his aggregate term of imprisonment of 25 years in prison and five years post-release supervision after being convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. (Dkt. No.2.) On February 15, 2013, Petitioner filed an amended petition. (Dkt. No. 12.) On December 19,2016, Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy entered a thorough Report & Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court deny Petitioner's amended petition. (R&R 31 (Dkt. No. 21 ). ) In the R&R, Magistrate Judge McCarthy provides notice that objections to the R&R were due within 17 days, and that failure to object would preclude later appellate review of any order of judgment that will be entered. (/d. at 32.) No objections have been filed. When a petitioner does not file any objections, the Court reviews an R&R for clear error. See Rose v. Rivera, No. 08-CV-6027, 2011 WL 3874718, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2011). The Court has reviewed the R&R and finds no error, clear or otherwise. ,. The Court therefore adopts the R&R in its entirety and denies Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. 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(c)(2); Lucidore v. NY State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 111-12 (2d Cir. 2000). In addition, the Court 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, 445 (1962) ("We consider a defendant's good faith ... demonstrated when he seeks appellate review of any issue not frivolous."); Burda Media Inc. v. Blumenberg, 731 F. Supp. 2d 321,322-23 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Coppedge and noting that an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to enter a judgment in favor of Respondent and to close this case. SO ORDERED. DATED: January&__, 2017 White Plains, New York UNIT$D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ' 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?