Huff v. Miller

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10 . The Clerk of Court is requested to close this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Lawrence J. Vilardo on 5/9/2020. (APG)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-

Case 1:17-cv-00364-LJV-HBS Document 14 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DEMETRIUS A. HUFF,
Petitioner,
v.

17-CV-364
DECISION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER MILLER,
Respondent.

On May 1, 2017, the pro se petitioner, Demetrius A. Huff, petitioned this Court for
habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Docket Item 1. On July 18, 2017, the
respondent opposed the petition, Docket Item 3, and on August 11, 2017, Huff replied,
Docket Item 4. On February 26, 2020, the case was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A)
and (B). Docket Item 8. On March 20, 2020, Judge Scott issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) finding that Huff’s request for habeas corpus relief should be
denied and the petition dismissed. Docket Item 10.
On March 30, 2020, Huff objected to the R&R, Docket Item 11, and on April 13,
2020, Miller responded to the objections. Docket Item 13. The April 22, 2020 deadline
to file a reply has since passed, and Huff has neither replied nor requested an extension
of time to do so.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of
a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court
must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s

Case 1:17-cv-00364-LJV-HBS Document 14 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 2

recommendation to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
This Court has carefully and thoroughly reviewed the petition, the R&R, the
objections, and the response. Based on that de novo review, the Court accepts and
adopts Judge Scott’s recommendation to deny Huff’s request for habeas corpus relief
and dismiss the petition in its entirety. The issues raised in the petition all turn on
credibility determinations that were made in the state court and that there is no reason
to revisit. Moreover, Huff’s objections do nothing more than repeat the arguments he
made in the petition and to Judge Scott. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in the
R&R, Huff’s request for relief is denied and the petition dismissed.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

May 9, 2020
Buffalo, New York

s/ Lawrence J. Vilardo
LAWRENCE J. VILARDO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2