From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cancer v. Ercole

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Apr 29, 2010
No. 07-CV-808 (TJM/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2010)

Opinion

No. 07-CV-808 (TJM/RFT).

April 29, 2010


DECISION ORDER


Pro se Petitioner Tammar Cancer brings this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on the grounds of (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel; and (2) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The Petition was referred to the Hon. Rondolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).

The Report-Recommendation dated February 5, 2010 recommended that (1) that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied; and (2) because Petitioner has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability should be issued with respect to any of Petitioner's claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been raised. After examining the record, this Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. Accordingly, this Court adopts the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Treece for the reasons stated therein.

It is therefore

ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. Further, no certificate of appealability will be issued with respect to any of the Petitioner's claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Cancer v. Ercole

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Apr 29, 2010
No. 07-CV-808 (TJM/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2010)
Case details for

Cancer v. Ercole

Case Details

Full title:TAMMAR CANCER, Petitioner, v. ROBERT ERCOLE, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 29, 2010

Citations

No. 07-CV-808 (TJM/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2010)