From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Poquee v. Ercole

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Apr 25, 2007
9:06-CV-45 (LEK/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2007)

Opinion

9:06-CV-45 (LEK/DRH).

April 25, 2007


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January 12, 2007, by the Honorable David R. Homer, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(d) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 18). After an extension was granted for filing of objections, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Muhammed Poquee, which were filed on February 1, 2007. Objections (Dkt. No. 22).

It is the duty of this Court to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." Id. This Court has considered the objections and has undertaken a de novo review of the record and has determined that the Report-Recommendation should be approved for the reasons stated therein.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 18) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Petitioner's Petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on all parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Poquee v. Ercole

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Apr 25, 2007
9:06-CV-45 (LEK/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2007)
Case details for

Poquee v. Ercole

Case Details

Full title:MOHAMMED POQUEE, Petitioner, v. R. ERCOLE, SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent

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

Date published: Apr 25, 2007

Citations

9:06-CV-45 (LEK/DRH) (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2007)

Citing Cases

Rodriguez v. Griffin

In the absence of any clearly established law by the Supreme Court, [petitioner] may not rely on § 2254(d)(1)…

Mack v. Collado

(Dkt No. 21-5 at 70-75.) See Poquee v. Ercole, No. 06-CV-45, 2007 WL 1218722, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 25,…