Opinion
8:12-cv-1873
02-25-2013
CARLOS PETERSON, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE COURT OF APPEALS, Defendant.
FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Carlos Peterson Pro Se FOR THE DEFENDANT NO APPEARANCE
(GLS/CFH)
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Carlos Peterson
Pro Se
FOR THE DEFENDANT
NO APPEARANCE
Service on the defendant has not yet been permitted as this case comes to the court as part of the preliminary review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
OF COUNSEL:
Gary L. Sharpe
Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. Introduction
Plaintiff pro se Carlos Peterson brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his constitutional rights were violated by defendant New York State Court of Appeals. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) In a Report-Recommendation and Order (R&R) filed December 27, 2012, Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel recommended that the Complaint be dismissed. (See generally R&R, Dkt. No. 4.) Pending are Peterson's objections to the R&R. (See Dkt. No. 5.) For the reasons that follow, the R&R is adopted in its entirety.
The Clerk is directed to append the R&R to this decision, and familiarity therewith is presumed.
--------
II. Standard of Review
Before entering final judgment, this court routinely reviews all report-recommendation and orders in cases it has referred to a magistrate judge. If a party has objected to specific elements of the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, this court reviews those findings and recommendations de novo. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484GLS, 2006 WL 149049, at *6-7 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). Where no party has filed an objection, only vague or general objections are made, or a party resubmits the same papers and arguments already considered by the magistrate judge, this court reviews the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge for clear error. See id., at *4-5.
III. Discussion
Peterson's "objections" consist of statements expressing his dissatisfaction with the way in which the Court of Appeals reviews state convictions. (See Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2.) Noticeably absent from Peterson's submission is a reference to any errors in Judge Hummel's decision. (See id.) As such, Peterson's "objections" are insufficient to require a de novo review. Having found no clear error in the R&R, the court accepts and adopts Judge Hummel's R&R in its entirety.
IV. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Christian F. Hummel's December 27, 2012 Report-Recommendation and Order (Dkt. No. 4) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED that Peterson's Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) is DISMISSED; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk close this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Memorandum- Decision and Order to the parties by mail and certified mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 25, 2013 Albany, New York