Summary
finding petitioner's claim that prosecutor knowingly suborned perjury in the grand jury not cognizable on habeas review, because it asserts errors that allegedly occurred only at the grand jury proceeding
Summary of this case from O'Kane v. KirkpatrickOpinion
04-CV-031.
October 2, 2007
ORDER
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On January 1, 2004, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On July 12, 2007, Magistrate Judge Bianchini filed a Report and Recommendation, recommending that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied and that no Certificate of Appealability should issue with respect to any of petitioner's claims.
Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on September 25, 2007.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the objections filed by petitioner, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Bianchini's Report and Recommendation, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner is denied. The Clerk of Court shall take all steps necessary to close the case.
The Court finds that petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and therefore no certificate of appealability should issue 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from this judgment would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Further requests to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis must be filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
SO ORDERED.