Opinion
No. 00 Civ. 1361 (RCC)(JCF)
July 22, 2002
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner, Juan Luna ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro Se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in New York Supreme Court n September 13, 1996 and was later sentenced as a second felony offender to two concurrent prison terms of eight to sixteen years. Petitioner, who filed the instant petition on December 13, 1999, seeks habeas relief on the grounds that: (1) the evidence that led to his conviction was insufficient to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court improperly admitted into evidence narcotics found in the police van in which Petitioner was transported following his arrest, thus denying him of his right to a fair trial; and (3) he was denied his right to a speedy trial.
By Report and Recommendation ("Report") dated November 14, 2001, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV recommended that the petition be denied. Judge Francis determined that Petitioner failed to demonstrate any constitutional error with respect to evidentiary rulings by the trial court or his right to a speedy trial. See Report at 5-11. Moreover, Judge Francis concluded that the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 11-13.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties had ten days to File written objections. On November 27, 2001, Petitioner was granted an extension of thirty additional days to file a timely objection. Failure to file any objections in a timely fashion may constitute a waiver of those objections. See Thomas v. Arn, 106 S.Ct. 466, 475 (1985). To date, Petitioner has not filed any objections to the Magistrate's Report and the time to do so has clearly passed. Moreover, Petitioner has not requested a further extension of time in which to object to the Magistrate's Report.
A court may adopt those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which the parties do not object and with which the court finds no clear error. Pizzaro v. Bartlett, 776 F. Supp. 815, 817 (S.D.N.Y. 1991). The Court, having reviewed the file in this matter and satisfied that there is no clear error on the face of the record, accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Francis in its entirety. Thus, the petition is denied with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED: