Farmer v. Colvin et al

Filing 56

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 55 Report and Recommendations. Upon a careful and complete review of the R&R, the Court finds no clear error in Chief Magistrate Judge Davison's thorough and well-reasoned analysis, and adopts the R&R in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. Consequently, the Petition is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 10/4/2021) (jca) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TYRONE FARMER,
Petitioner,
-against-

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
17-CV-01091 (PMH)

JOHN COLVIN,
Respondent.
PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge:
On June 13, 2013, Tyrone Farmer (“Petitioner”) was convicted—following a guilty plea in
the New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County—of: (1) Burglary in the Second Degree;
(2) Criminal Mischief in the Fourth Degree; (3) Criminal Possession of Stolen Property in the Fifth
Degree; and (4) Petit Larceny. (Doc. 2 at 1). Petitioner was thereafter sentenced to a term of ten
years’ incarceration followed by five years’ post-release supervision. (Doc. 53 at 9-10).
On February 10, 2017, Petitioner initiated the instant action—a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254—to challenge both the above-referenced conviction
and sentence. (Doc. 2). On March 28, 2017, Judge Kenneth M. Karas—before whom this matter
proceeded before it was reassigned to this Court on April 16, 2020—issued an Order of Reference
referring the Petition to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison. (See Doc. 9).
On August 30, 2021, Chief Magistrate Judge Davison issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Petition be denied. (Doc. 55). The R&R
advised, in pertinent part, as follows:
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the parties
shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and
Recommendation to serve and file written objections. If copies of
this Report and Recommendation are served upon the parties by

mail, the parties shall have an additional three (3) days, or a total of
seventeen (17) days, from service of this Report and
Recommendation to serve and file written objections.
(Id. at 37). Chief Magistrate Judge Davison warned further that “[f]ailure to file timely objections
to this Report and Recommendation will preclude later appellate review of any order of judgment
that will be entered.” (Id. at 38). More than a month has passed since a copy of the R&R was
mailed to Petitioner, and no objections have been filed.1
“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.’” Antoine v. Warden, No. 20-CV-05130, 2021 WL 4066654, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2021)
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). “The district court may adopt those portions of the recommended
ruling to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the
face of the record.” Olivo v. Graham, No. 15-CV-09938, 2021 WL 3271833, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July
30, 2021) (citing Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).
Upon a careful and complete review of the R&R, the Court finds no clear error in Chief
Magistrate Judge Davison’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis, and adopts the R&R in its
entirety for the reasons set forth therein. Consequently, the Petition is DENIED. The Clerk of the
Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner and close this case.
SO ORDERED:
Dated:

White Plains, New York
October 4, 2021
PHILIP M. HALPERN
United States District Judge

1

The R&R was mailed to Petitioner on August 30, 2021. (Doc. 55 at 1). This mailing—sent to the address
Petitioner provided to the Court—was returned to the Court on or about September 15, 2021 “for the
following reason(s): Not Here, Return to Sender, Unable to Forward.” (Sept. 15, 2021 Entry). It was
Petitioner’s obligation to provide the Court with an address for mail service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a).

2