Logiudice v. U.S.

Full title: EMANUELE LOGIUDICE, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

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

Date published: Mar 19, 2008

01 CV 88 (SJ) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2008)

Opinion

01 CV 88 (SJ).

March 19, 2008

Mark S. DeMarco, Bronx, New York, By: Mark S. DeMarco, Esq., Attorney for Petitioner.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney, Brooklyn, New York, By: Jo Ann Maria Navickas, Esq., Attorney for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STERLING JOHNSON JR., District Judge

Presently before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ("Report") prepared by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Judge Levy issued the Report on November 9, 2007, and provided the parties with the requisite amount of time to file any objections. Petitioner Emanuele Logiudice ("Petitioner") timely filed objections to the Report on November 21, 2007. The government did not file any objections to the Report. For the reasons stated herein, this Court affirms and adopts the Report in its entirety.

A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine certain motions pending before the Court and to submit to the Court proposed findings of fact and a recommendation as to the disposition of the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 10 days of service of the recommendation, any party may file written objections to the magistrate's report. See id. Upon de novo review of those portions of the record to which objections were made, the district court judge may affirm or reject the recommendations. See id. The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).

Petitioner objects to the fact that Judge Levy did not credit the Petitioner's claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Petitioner based his claims on the grounds that his attorney failed to advise him that should he be convicted after trial, he faced a minimum sentence of twenty years imprisonment. Petitioner also claims that his attorney mistakenly lead him to believe that he would very likely be acquitted at trial. After reviewing Judge Levy's Report and Defendant's objections, and after reviewing de novo those portions of the record to which the objections were made, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not raised any new arguments that would convince this Court to reject Judge Levy's well-reasoned recommendations.

Accordingly, this Court will defer to the findings of Judge Levy and it affirms and adopts the Report in its entirety.

SO ORDERED.