Opinion
11-CV-4322 (CS) (PED)
11-16-2012
MIGUEL A. ROJAS, Petitioner, v. PHILIP D. HEATH, Superintendent, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Seibel. J.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison, dated October 18, 2012, (Doc. 21), recommending denial of Petitioner's Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Doc. 2). Familiarity with the prior proceedings and the R&R is presumed.
A district court reviewing a magistrate judge's report and recommendation "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Parties may raise objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, but they must be "specific," "written," and submitted "[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); accord 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which timely objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) ("The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions."). The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record. Lewis v. Zon, 573 F. Supp. 2d 804, 811 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee's note (b).
Plaintiff has raised no objections to the Magistrate Judge's carefully considered R&R. I have reviewed the R&R and find no error, clear or otherwise. Accordingly, I adopt the R&R as the decision of the Court. The Petition is dismissed with prejudice. As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Lozada v. United States, 107 F.3d 1011, 1016-17 (2d Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Perez, 129 F.3d 255,259-60 (2d Cir. 1997). The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 16, 2011
White Plains, New York
________
CATHY SEIBEL, U.S.D.J.