Goodall v. Von Blanckensee
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 15 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, dated July 19, 2019, is ADOPTED in its entirety. ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED. ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 3/5/2020) (kv) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ANDY Q. GOODALL,
Petitioner,
V.
WARDEN B. VON BLANCKENSEE,
No. 17-CV-3615 (KMK)
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
Respondent.
KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:
Prose Petitioner Andy Q. Goodall ("Petitioner") was sentenced to a term of 250 months
of incarceration with a lifetime of supervised release on September 29, 2016 in the United States
District Court for the District of Maine for production of child pornography, in violation of 18
U .S.C. §§ 2251(a), (e). (Deel. of Stephanie Scannell-Vessella (" Scannell-Vessella Deel.") 14
(Dkt. No. 13).) Petitioner was incarcerated in the general population unit of the Federal
Correctional Institute in Otisville, New York ("FCI Otisville") from November 8, 2016 to
February 21 , 2017. (Deel. of David Susney (" Susney Deel.") 16 (Dkt. No. 12).) On February
21 , 2017, Petitioner was placed in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU") at FCI Otisville pending
investigations related to certain threatening messages sent to FCI Otisville staff members. (Id.
7-17.)
On April 30, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S .C.
§ 2241 in this Court (the "Petition"). (See generally Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Pet.")
(Dkt. No. 1). ) Petitioner alleged violations of due process, as well as cruel and unusual
punishment, false imprisonment, and discrimination related to his confinement in SHU. (Id. at
7-9.) Petitioner sought relief in the form of immediate release to the general population unit
pending his transfer to MDC Brooklyn. (Id. at 9.) The matter was referred to the Honorable
11
Judith C. McCarthy ("Judge McCarthy") on June 8, 2017. (Dkt. No. 9.) On July 27, 2017,
Petitioner was transferred to MDC Brooklyn, pending an ultimate transfer to the Federal
Correctional Institute in Petersburg, Virginia ("FCI Petersburg"). (Susney Deel. 119.)
Petitioner was transferred to FCI Petersburg on August 7, 2017. (Id. 1 19.) Plaintiff has been
housed with the general population at both MDC Brooklyn and FCI Petersburg. (Id. 120.)
On July 19, 2019, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R")
recommending that this Court deny the Petition in its entirety, finding that the Petition was moot
because Petitioner has been transferred from FCI Otisville and is no longer housed in SHU.
(R&R 9-12 (Dkt. No. 15).) Petitioner has not filed any objections to the R&R. 1
When no objections are filed, the Court reviews an R&R on a dispositive motion for clear
error. See Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F. Supp. 2d 269,271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Eisenberg v. N ew
Eng. Motor Freight, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 224, 226 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). The Court has reviewed
the R&R and the Petition, and finding no substantive error, clear or otherwise, adopts the R&R.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, dated July 19, 2019, is ADOPTED in
its entirety.
ORDERED that the Petition is DISMISSED.
Judge McCarthy provided notice that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C), objections
to the R&R were due within 14 days from the receipt of the R&R, or 17 days from the receipt of
the same if the R&R was served upon the Parties by mail, and that the failure to object would
1
constituM ~ wniver of Petitioner'~ right to appeal. (R.&R. lZ.)
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case and to
mail a copy ofthis Order to Petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
Marcu-5 , 2020
White Plains, New York
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?