From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Johnson v. Langford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Oct 5, 2015
9:15-cv-0048 (LEK/ATB) (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2015)

Summary

rejecting the petitioner's argument that "any other term of imprisonment" referred to other federal terms of imprisonment

Summary of this case from Hopper v. Hudgins

Opinion

9:15-cv-0048 (LEK/ATB)

10-05-2015

LEONARD A. JOHNSON, JR., Petitioner, v. STEVEN LANGFORD, Respondent.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on July 20, 2015, by the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 9 ("Report-Recommendation").

Within fourteen days 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); L.R. 72.1(c). If no objections are made, or if an objection is general, conclusory, perfunctory, or a mere reiteration of an argument made to the magistrate judge, a district court must review that aspect of a report-recommendation only for clear error. Barnes v. Prack, No. 11-CV-0857, 2013 WL 1121353, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2013); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp. 2d 301, 306-07 & n.2 (N.D.N.Y. 2008); see also Machicote v. Ercole, No. 06 Civ. 13320, 2011 WL 3809920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2011) ("[E]ven a pro se party's objections to a Report and Recommendation must be specific and clearly aimed at particular findings in the magistrate's proposal, such that no party be allowed a second bite at the apple by simply relitigating a prior argument."). "A [district] judge . . . may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).

No objections were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. Accordingly, the Court has reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and has found none.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 9) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

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

ORDERED, that the Court serve a copy of this Order on all parties in accordance with the Local Rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: October 05, 2015

Albany, New York

/s/_________

Lawrence E. Kahn

U.S. District Judge


Summaries of

Johnson v. Langford

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Oct 5, 2015
9:15-cv-0048 (LEK/ATB) (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2015)

rejecting the petitioner's argument that "any other term of imprisonment" referred to other federal terms of imprisonment

Summary of this case from Hopper v. Hudgins
Case details for

Johnson v. Langford

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD A. JOHNSON, JR., Petitioner, v. STEVEN LANGFORD, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Oct 5, 2015

Citations

9:15-cv-0048 (LEK/ATB) (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2015)

Citing Cases

Wright v. Hudson

Abdul-Malik, 403 F.3d at 75; Barden, 921 F.2d at 478 n.4. In Johnson v. Langford, the petitioner appealed the…

Hopper v. Hudgins

First, the Petitioner was sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which requires that the term of imprisonment…