From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DANN v. RABIDEAU

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jul 7, 2008
9:05-CV-0969, (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 2008)

Summary

noting that "[t]he Second Circuit Court of Appeals has observed and deferred to New York's consistent application of its contemporaneous objection rules"

Summary of this case from Howard v. Potter

Opinion

9:05-CV-0969, (LEK/RFT).

July 7, 2008


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on June 6, 2008, by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3(c) of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 11).

Within ten days, excluding weekends and holidays, after a party has been served with a copy of a Magistrate Judge's Report-Recommendation, the party "may serve and file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations," FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b), in compliance with L.R. 72.1. No objections have been raised in the allotted time with respect to Judge Treece's Report-Recommendation. Furthermore, after examining the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 11) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

ORDERED, that no Certificate of Appealability shall issue with respect to any of Petitioner's claims; and it is further

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

DANN v. RABIDEAU

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jul 7, 2008
9:05-CV-0969, (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 2008)

noting that "[t]he Second Circuit Court of Appeals has observed and deferred to New York's consistent application of its contemporaneous objection rules"

Summary of this case from Howard v. Potter
Case details for

DANN v. RABIDEAU

Case Details

Full title:JAMES A. DANN, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL RABIDEAU, Respondent

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

Date published: Jul 7, 2008

Citations

9:05-CV-0969, (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 2008)

Citing Cases

Howard v. Potter

This is because Petitioner has failed to indicate where in the record his trial counsel made objections to…

Blackshear v. Artus

"Petitioner has not identified a parallel federal constitutional right requiring the same corroboration, nor…