Summary
concluding that petitioner's argument that "the amount of restitution awarded by the state court violate[d] Penal Law § 60.27" had "no basis . . . in constitutional or federal law" and was thus not cognizable on habeas review
Summary of this case from Burkett v. ArtusOpinion
9:11-CV-0439 (LEK/DEP)
06-19-2014
BRIAN D. HODGES, Petitioner, v. NORMAN BEZIO, Respondent.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on May 19, 2014, by the Honorable David E. Peebles, U.S. Magistrate Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3. Dkt. No. 14 ("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 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).
No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed in the allotted time period. See Docket. 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. 14) is APPROVED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Petition (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED in all respects; and it is further
ORDERED, that, because Petitioner has not made a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a certificate of appealability shall not issue; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 19, 2014
Albany, New York
__________
Lawrence E. Kahn
U.S. District Judge