Williams v. Lamanna

Filing 15

ORDER: Accordingly, the Court will re-mail the R&R to Petitioner. Petitioner is reminded that because the R&R is being served upon him by mailhe shall have seventeen (17) days from receipt of the R&R to file and serve any written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Finally, the Court reminds Petitioner that it is his responsibility to notify the Court in writing every time his contact information changes. (See Dkt. No. 6, at 2 ("If your contact informat ion changes, it is your responsibility to notify the court in writing, even if you are incarcerated and transferred to another facility or released from custody.... Your case could be dismissed if you do not notify the court of an address change.& quot; (emphasis in original)). If the Court does not receive any objections by the applicable deadline, the Court may issue an order reviewing the R&R only for clear error. See Torres v. Golden Home Furniture Inc., No. 20-CV-4789, 2023 WL 3791807, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2023) (citing Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F. Supp. 2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)); accord ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 16-CV- 9527, 2022 WL 17070111, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022). Moreover, as stated in the R&R, (see R&R 4445), Petitioner is reminded that failure to file timely objections to the R&R will preclude later appellate review of any order of judgment that is ultimately rendered. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008). (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 12/19/2023) (rro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 18-CV-2172 (KMK)
ORDER

JAIME LAMANNA,
Respondent.
KENNETH M. KARAS, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Michael Williams (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for a Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”) on March 9, 2018. (See Dkt.
No. 1.) On October 11, 2023, Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy issued a Report and
Recommendation (the “R&R”), in which she recommended that the Court deny the Petition in its
entirety. (See R&R (Dkt. No. 14).) The Clerk of Court mailed a copy of the R&R to Petitioner’s
address at Green Haven Correctional Facility, which is reflected on the docket, on October 13,
2023. (See Dkt. (entry dated Oct. 13, 2023).) Upon learning that Petitioner had been transferred
to another prison, Judge McCarthy’s Chambers re-mailed the R&R to Petitioner’s new address at
Gouverneur Correctional Facility on October 20, 2023. (See Dkt. (entry dated Oct. 20, 2023).)
Thereafter, after learning that Petitioner had again been transferred to another prison, Judge
McCarthy’s Chambers again re-mailed the R&R to Petitioner’s new address at Upstate
Correctional Facility on November 9, 2023. (See Dkt. (entry dated Nov. 9, 2023).)
It has come to the Court’s attention that, since the R&R was last mailed to him on
November 9, 2023, Petitioner has again been transferred to another prison—this time, Elmira
Correctional Facility. Accordingly, the Court will re-mail the R&R to Petitioner. Petitioner is
reminded that—because the R&R is being served upon him by mail—he shall have seventeen
(17) days from receipt of the R&R to file and serve any written objections. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Finally, the Court reminds Petitioner that it is his responsibility to notify the Court in
writing every time his contact information changes. (See Dkt. No. 6, at 2 (“If your contact
information changes, it is your responsibility to notify the court in writing, even if you are
incarcerated and transferred to another facility or released from custody. . . . Your case could be
dismissed if you do not notify the court of an address change.” (emphasis in original)). If the
Court does not receive any objections by the applicable deadline, the Court may issue an order
reviewing the R&R only for clear error. See Torres v. Golden Home Furniture Inc., No. 20-CV4789, 2023 WL 3791807, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2023) (citing Andrews v. LeClaire, 709 F.
Supp. 2d 269, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)); accord ExxonMobil Oil Corp. v. TIG Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-

9527, 2022 WL 17070111, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2022). Moreover, as stated in the R&R,
(see R&R 44–45), Petitioner is reminded that failure to file timely objections to the R&R will
preclude later appellate review of any order of judgment that is ultimately rendered. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 19, 2023
White Plains, New York

KENNETH M. KARAS
United States District Judge

2