ORDER

KIMBA WOOD, District Judge

Petitioner Albert Williams ("Petitioner") is currently serving two concurrent terms of twenty-five years to life after a jury convicted him of first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy. He has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing: (1) that his speedy trial rights were violated; and (2) that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. Petitioner subsequently withdrew his speedy trial claim.

Magistrate Judge Frank Maas issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R R") recommending that the Court deny the habeas petition. Petitioner timely filed objections to the R R.

The Court notes at the outset that "pro se litigants generally are entitled to a liberal construction of their pleadings, which should be read `to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.'" Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996); Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 (2d Cir. 1981). When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the appropriate standard of review to be applied by the reviewing district court depends on whether objections are filed. See Nuetzel v. Walsh, No. 00-CV-8776, 2006 WL 2742000, at *1, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69583, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2006). Where, as here, "objections are merely perfunctory responses, argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition, reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error.'" Id. (quoting Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)). Because Petitioner's objections — even construed liberally — repeat arguments that Petitioner has previously made, and do not allege that Magistrate Judge Maas made any specific errors, the Court will review the R R for clear error. See id.

The Court has reviewed the R R, and finds it to be well-reasoned and free of any "clear error on the face of the record." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note; see also Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). The Court therefore accepts and adopts the R R.

Accordingly, Petitioner's habeas petition [#1] is denied. A certificate of appealability will not issue because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the civil case associated with this petition (03 cv 3319). Any pending motions are moot.

SO ORDERED.