Williams v. Miller

Full title: EDMOND WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. CHRIOSTPHER MILLER, Respondent.

Court: United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Jan 12, 2024

9:22-CV-142 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2024)

Opinion

9:22-CV-142

01-12-2024

EDMOND WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. CHRIOSTPHER MILLER, Respondent.

OFFICE OF THERESA M. SUOZZI Attorneys for Petitioner THERESA M. SUOZZI, ESQ. HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent JAMES FOSTER GIBBONS, ESQ.

DAVID N. HURD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

OFFICE OF THERESA M. SUOZZI Attorneys for Petitioner

THERESA M. SUOZZI, ESQ.

HON. LETITIA JAMES New York State Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent

JAMES FOSTER GIBBONS, ESQ.

ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

DAVID N. HURD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On February 15, 2022, petitioner Edmond Williams (“petitioner”), a state prisoner who is now incarcerated at Auburn Correctional Facility, filed this habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Dkt. No. 1.

The petition challenged a May 23, 2017 judgment of conviction, entered after a jury trial in Albany County Court, that found petitioner guilty of crimes arising from the possession and sale of a controlled substance. Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner was sentenced principally to twelve years in prison. Id.

Respondent Christopher Miller (“respondent”), the Superintendent of the facility where petitioner was previously incarcerated, was directed to respond to the petition. Dkt. No. 5. Respondent opposed habeas relief. Dkt. No. 14.

On December 28, 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that the petition be denied and dismissed. Dkt. No. 18. In a thorough written opinion, Judge Baxter explained that petitioner various habeas claims failed. Id.

Petitioner has not filed objections, and the time period in which to do so has expired. See Dkt. No. 18. Upon review for clear error, the R&R is accepted and will be adopted in all respects. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).

Therefore, it is ORDERED that

1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is ACCEPTED;

2. The petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED; and

3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion, enter a judgment accordingly, and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.