From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blackshear v. Donnelly

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jan 14, 2008
9:03-CV-0450 (LEK/VEB) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2008)

Opinion

9:03-CV-0450 (LEK/VEB).

January 14, 2008


DECISION AND ORDER


This matter comes before the Court following a Report-Recommendation filed on November 23, 2007 by the Honorable Vincent E. Bianchini, 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. 45). After ten days from the service thereof, the Clerk has sent the entire file to the undersigned, including the objections by Petitioner Douglas Blackshear, Jr., which were filed on January 7, 2008. Objections (Dkt. No. 48).

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

ORDERED, that the Petition for Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Blackshear v. Donnelly

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Jan 14, 2008
9:03-CV-0450 (LEK/VEB) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2008)
Case details for

Blackshear v. Donnelly

Case Details

Full title:DOUGLAS BLACKSHEAR, JR., Petitioner, v. EDWARD E. DONNELLY, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 14, 2008

Citations

9:03-CV-0450 (LEK/VEB) (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2008)

Citing Cases

Parker v. Ercole

The focus of the inquiry regarding whether there has been an "unconscionable breakdown" must be on "the…

Morris v. Chappius

Collateral estoppel "prohibits a state from re-litigating ultimate facts resolved in the [petitioner's] favor…