From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Escalante v. Smith

United States District Court, N.D. New York
May 18, 2009
9:06-CV-1506 (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. May. 18, 2009)

Summary

concluding that the Appellate Division's ruling that petitioner's claim was unpreserved constituted an independent and adequate state barrier to habeas review

Summary of this case from Belle v. Superintendent

Opinion

9:06-CV-1506 (LEK/RFT).

May 18, 2009


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 7, 2009 by the Honorable Randolph F. Treece, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and L.R. 72.3 of the Northern District of New York. Report-Rec. (Dkt. No. 13). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Defendant Escalante, which were filed on May 12, 2009. Objections (Dkt. No. 13).

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. 13) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its ENTIRETY; and it is further

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

ORDERED, that because the Court finds Petitioner has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability should issue with respect to any of Petitioner's claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) ("A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.");see also Lucidore v. New York State Div. of Parole, 209 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2000); and it is further

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Escalante v. Smith

United States District Court, N.D. New York
May 18, 2009
9:06-CV-1506 (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. May. 18, 2009)

concluding that the Appellate Division's ruling that petitioner's claim was unpreserved constituted an independent and adequate state barrier to habeas review

Summary of this case from Belle v. Superintendent
Case details for

Escalante v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:PAUL ESCALANTE, Petitioner, v. JOSEPH SMITH, Superintendent, Shawangunk…

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

Date published: May 18, 2009

Citations

9:06-CV-1506 (LEK/RFT) (N.D.N.Y. May. 18, 2009)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Superintendent

The New York procedural rule applied by the Appellate Division—that a challenge to the sufficiency or…

Rought v. Stallone

The New York procedural rule applied by the Appellate Division—that a challenge to the sufficiency or…