Opinion
9:16-CV-0817 (GTS/CFH)
03-05-2018
JAMISON ADSIT, Petitioner, v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, Acting Comm'r of DOCCS; and TINA M. STANFORD, Chairwoman of the NYS Board of Parole, Respondents.
APPEARANCES: THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC Counsel for Petitioner 45 Exchange Boulevard, Suite 925 Rochester, New York 14614 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Counsel for Respondent 120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York 10271 OF COUNSEL: DAVID MICHAEL ABBATOY, ESQ. PAUL B. LYONS, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General
APPEARANCES: THE ABBATOY LAW FIRM, PLLC
Counsel for Petitioner
45 Exchange Boulevard, Suite 925
Rochester, New York 14614 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN
Attorney General for the State of New York
Counsel for Respondent
120 Broadway, 24th Floor
New York, New York 10271 OF COUNSEL: DAVID MICHAEL ABBATOY, ESQ. PAUL B. LYONS, ESQ.
Assistant Attorney General GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER
Currently before the Court, in this habeas corpus proceeding filed by Jamison Adsit ("Petitioner") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is the Report-Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel recommending that the Petition be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and that a certificate of appealability not issue. (Dkt. No. 33.) Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully considering the matter, the Court can find no clear error in the thorough Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hummel: Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 33, at Parts I-II.) As a result, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation in its entirety for the reasons stated therein.
When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a clear-error review, "the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) ("I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge's] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.") (internal quotation marks omitted). --------
ACCORDINGLY, it is
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 33) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) in this matter is DENIED and DISMISSED ; and it is further
ORDERED that a certificate of appealability not issue with respect to any of the claims set forth in the Petition, because Petitioner has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Dated: March 5, 2018
Syracuse, New York
/s/_________
HON. GLENN T. SUDDABY
Chief United States District Judge