Carr v. Senkowski

Full title: JAMES CARR, Petitioner, v. SUPT. DANIEL SENKOWSKI, Respondent

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

Date published: Oct 23, 2007

01-CV-689 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2007)

Opinion

01-CV-689.

October 23, 2007

ORDER

RICHARD ARCARA, District Judge

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on October 1, 2001. On May 10, 2007, Magistrate Judge Bianchini filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied.

Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on June 4, 2007, and respondent filed a reply thereto.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report and Recommendation, petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. The Clerk of Court shall take all steps necessary to close the case.

The Court finds that petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and therefore denies his motion for a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this judgment would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Further requests to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis must be filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

SO ORDERED.