Opinion
18 Civ. 8709 (PAE) (KNF)
08-09-2019
JAMES WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. J. LA MANNA, Respondent.
OPINION & ORDER
:
Before the Court is the July 9, 2019 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox, recommending—in response to respondent La Manna's motion to dismiss Williams' habeas petition as untimely—that the Court dismiss this action. Dkt. 14 (the "Report"). For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report in full.
I. Background
A. Facts
The Court incorporates by reference the summary of the facts set forth in the Report. See Report at 1-3.
B. Procedural History
On September 24, 2018, Williams filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. 1. On December 28, 2018, La Manna filed a motion to dismiss the petition as untimely, Dkt. 10, a supporting declaration, Dkt. 11, and supporting memorandum of law, Dkt. 12.
On July 9, 2019, Judge Fox issued the Report. Dkt. 14. On the same day, Judge Fox's chambers mailed a copy of the Report to Williams. Williams has yet to file any objections.
II. Discussion
In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court "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). "To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950 (KPF) (RLE), 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 02 Civ. 5810 (DLC) (AJP), 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2009), aff'd 453 Fed. App'x 88 (2d Cir. 2011)); see also, e.g., Mims v. Walsh, No. 04 Civ. 6133 (BSJ) (FM), 2012 WL 6699070, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2012) (quoting Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)).
Because neither party has submitted objections to the Report, review for clear error is appropriate. Careful review of Judge Fox's thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no facial error in its conclusions. The Court, therefore, adopts the Report in its entirety.
In addition, the Report expressly states that " [f]ailure to file objections within fourteen (14) days will result in a waiver of objections and will preclude appellate review ." Report at 6. Accordingly, each party's failure to object to the Report operates as a waiver of appellate review. See Monroe v. Hyundai of Manhattan & Westchester, 372 F. App'x 147, 147-48 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (quoting Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992)).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the Court adopts the Report in full. Williams' petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
The Court respectfully directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at docket 10.
SO ORDERED.
/s/_________
Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District Judge Dated: August 9, 2019
New York, New York