From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sudler v. Griffin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Aug 26, 2013
9:12-CV-0367 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2013)

Summary

finding the petitioner was "merely rearguing his state evidentiary claim" and the petitioner "raised only an evidentiary claim that was not resolved in petitioner's favor," which was not cognizable

Summary of this case from Green v. Kirkpatrick

Opinion

9:12-CV-0367

08-26-2013

IJAL SUDLER, Petitioner, v. PATRICK GRIFFIN, Respondent.

APPEARANCES: Ijal Sudler 08-A-0911 Sullivan Correctional Facility Box 116 Fallsburg, NY 12733 Petitioner, pro se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Counsel for Respondent OF COUNSEL: THOMAS B. LITSKY, ESQ Assistant Attorney General


APPEARANCES:

Ijal Sudler
08-A-0911
Sullivan Correctional Facility
Box 116
Fallsburg, NY 12733
Petitioner, pro se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General of the State of New York
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224
Counsel for Respondent

OF COUNSEL:

THOMAS B. LITSKY, ESQ
Assistant Attorney General NORMAN A. MORDUE, SENIOR U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE ORDER

The above matter comes to me following a Report-Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter, duly filed on the 1st day of August 2013. Following fourteen (14) days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent me the file, including any and all objections filed by the parties herein.

After careful review of all of the papers herein, including the Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, and no objections submitted thereto, it is

ORDERED that:

1. The Report-Recommendation is hereby adopted in its entirety.

2. The petition is denied and dismissed. A certificate of appealability is denied.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon all parties and the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 26, 2013

Syracuse, New York

/s/ _________

Norman A. Mordue

Senior U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Sudler v. Griffin

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Aug 26, 2013
9:12-CV-0367 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2013)

finding the petitioner was "merely rearguing his state evidentiary claim" and the petitioner "raised only an evidentiary claim that was not resolved in petitioner's favor," which was not cognizable

Summary of this case from Green v. Kirkpatrick
Case details for

Sudler v. Griffin

Case Details

Full title:IJAL SUDLER, Petitioner, v. PATRICK GRIFFIN, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Aug 26, 2013

Citations

9:12-CV-0367 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2013)

Citing Cases

Ellis v. Corey

“Evidentiary questions are generally matters of state law and raise no federal constitutional issue for…

Wlasiuk v. Noeth

Moreover, in the alternative, Petitioner's claim lacks merit for the reasons stated in Respondent's…