Opinion
9:22-CV-1073 (GTS/CFH)
12-19-2023
CHARLES BRANDON, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF, Monroe County, Respondent.
CHARLES BRANDON HON. LETITIA A. JAMES MARGARET E. CIEPRISZ, ESQ.
CHARLES BRANDON
HON. LETITIA A. JAMES
MARGARET E. CIEPRISZ, ESQ.
DECISION AND ORDER
GLENN T. SUDDABY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Charles Brandon (“Petitioner”) filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on October 17, 2022. (Dkt. No. 1.) On June 1, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 17.) By Report-Recommendation dated October 27, 2023, the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that Defendant's motion to dismiss be granted, Petitioner's Petition be denied, and that no certificate of appealability be issued. (Dkt. No. 19.) Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.)
After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Hummel's thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, Petitioner's Petition is denied and dismissed, and no certificate of appealability shall be issued.
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge's] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) is GRANTED ; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED .
The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.