Summary
denying habeas petition where, inter alia, “trial court ... found that there were two overriding interests for closing the courtroom during the Undercover Officer's testimony: the officer's safety and her continued effectiveness”
Summary of this case from Adams v. City of N.Y.Opinion
99-CV-495A.
March 30, 2004
ORDER
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On February 2, 2004, Magistrate Judge Bianchini filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the petition be dismissed and that a certificate of appealability should not issue. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on March 8, 2004, and respondent filed a response thereto on March 23, 2004.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions and hearing argument from the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report and Recommendation, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed.
The Court finds that petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and, therefore, denies a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.