Thomas v. Crowley ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ DERRICK THOMAS, Petitioner, 9:19-CV-0779 v. (GTS/CFH) KAREN CROWLEY, Respondent. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OFFICE OF NOREEN E. McCARTHY NOREEN E. McCARTHY, ESQ. Counsel for Petitioner P.O. Box 756 Keene Valley, New York 12943 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES PRISCILLA I. STEWARD, ESQ. Attorney General for the State of New York Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Respondent 28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Derrick Thomas (“Petitioner”) filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on July 1, 2019. (Dkt. No. 1.) By Report-Recommendation dated March 7, 2023, the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed, and that no certificate of appealability be issued. (Dkt. No. 22.) Petitioner has not filed an objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Hummel’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report- Recommendation.’ Magistrate Judge Hummel employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Petitioner’s Petition is denied and dismissed, and no certificate of appealability shall be issued. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Hummel’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 22) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Dated: March 28, 2023 Syracuse, New York U.S. District Judge ! When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report-recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Id.; see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“Iam permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).