Sanchez v. Griffin

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING R&R adopting 30 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 co nstitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Lucidore v. N.Y. 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 f rivolous."); 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, mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner, and to close this case. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 6/18/2018) (mro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DANIEL SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
Case No. 16-CV-428 (KMK) (PED)
V.

ORDER ADOPTING R&R
SUPERINTENDENT, FIVE POINTS
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Respondent.

KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge:
On May 12, 2016, Petitioner Daniel Sanchez ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se, filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, wherein he seeks habeas relief
on the grounds that: (1) his July 18, 2010 statements to the police should have been suppressed
because they were obtained in violation of his Fifth Amendment rights to counsel and to remain
silent; and (2) he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective trial counsel based on
his attorney convincing him to plead guilty. (Am. Petition (Dkt. No. 5).)
On May 23, 2018, Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison entered a thorough Report &
Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that this Court deny the petition in its entirety. (R&R
37 (Dkt. No. 30).) In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Davison provided 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. (Id. at 38.) 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. N. Y

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,
mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner, and to close this case.
SO ORDERED.
DATED:

Jg ,

June
2018
White Plains, New York

E
ED STA TES DISTRICT JUDGE

2