Maddox v. Clinton Correctional Facility

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 25 Report and Recommendations. Petitioner has not filed objections to the R&R, and accordingly the Court reviews it for clear error. Finding none, the R&R is adopted as the decision of the Court. As the Petition makes no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case.SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Cathy Seibel on 12/20/16) (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------x
WALTER MADDOX,
Petitioner,
-against-

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION

CLINTON CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
13-CV-4268 (CS)(LMS)
Respondent.
---------------------------------------------------x
Seibel, J.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
Lisa Margaret Smith (“R&R”), (Doc. 25), recommending that Petitioner’s application for a writ
of habeas corpus be denied.
A District Court reviewing a 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). The district court “may adopt those portions of the report to which no ‘specific,
written objection’ is made, as long as the factual and legal bases supporting the findings and
conclusions set forth in those sections are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Adams v.
N.Y. State Dep’t of Educ., 855 F. Supp. 2d 205, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)). “A party that objects to a report and
recommendation must point out the specific portions of the report and recommendation to which
they [sic] object.” J.P.T. Auto., Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 659 F. Supp. 2d 350,
352 (E.D.N.Y. 2009). If a party fails to object to a particular portion of a report and
recommendation, further review thereof is generally precluded. See Mario v. P & C Food Mkts.,
Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002). The court must review de novo any portion of the report

to which a specific objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Male
Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). When a party makes only conclusory or general
objections, or simply reiterates the original arguments made below, a court will review the report
only for clear error. Alaimo v. Bd. of Educ., 650 F. Supp. 2d 289, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
“Furthermore, [even] on de novo review, the Court generally does not consider arguments or
evidence which could have been, but were not, presented to the Magistrate Judge.” United
States v. Vega, 386 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).
Petitioner has not filed objections to the R&R, and accordingly the Court reviews it for
clear error. Finding none, the R&R is adopted as the decision of the Court. As the Petition
makes no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability
will not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the
case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2016
White Plains, New York

__________________________
CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.

2