You're viewing Docket Item 33 from the case Abreu v. Lempke. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 9:11-cv-00839-LEK-CFH Document 33 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CARLOS ABREU,


Petitioner,

-against-

9:11-CV-0839 (LEK/CFH)

JOHN LEMPKE, Superintendent,

Respondent.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on January

23, 2013, by the Honorable Christian F. Hummel, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). Dkt. No. 26 (“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); see also L.R. 72.1(c). “If no objections are

filed . . . reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error.” Edwards v.

Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Cephas v. Nash, 328 F.3d 98, 107

(2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any purported error or omission in a

magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the point.”); Farid v. Bouey, 554 F. Supp.

2d 301, 306 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).

The Court has granted Petitioner three substantial extensions of the time period for filing

objections to the Report-Recommendation. See Text Order dated March 28, 2013; Dkt. Nos. 30;

Case 9:11-cv-00839-LEK-CFH Document 33 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 2

1

32. Petitioner has still not filed any objections. After a thorough review of the Report-

Recommendation and the record, the Court has determined that the Report-Recommendation is not

subject to attack for clear error or manifest injustice.

Accordingly, it is hereby:

ORDERED, that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 26) is APPROVED and

ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Amended Petition (Dkt. No. 8) for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED

and DISMISSED; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Order on the parties in

accordance with the Local Rules; and it is further

ORDERED, that no certificate of appealability shall be issued in this case because

Petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2013

Albany, New York

1

The most recent Order granting Petitioner an extension informed him that “no further

extensions will be granted by the Court.” Dkt. No. 32.

2

See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (“[Section] 2253 permits the issuance

of a [certificate of appealability] only where a petitioner has made a ‘substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.’” (citation omitted)).

2