Summary
finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel's decision not to test evidence for "DNA was reasonable in light of the other evidence tending to identify [the petitioner] as [the victim's] assailant" since "the results may have further incriminated [the petitioner]"
Summary of this case from Rios v. BradtOpinion
06-CV-3078 (ARR) (JO).
April 22, 2009
ORDER
The court has received the Report and Recommendation on the instant case dated December 31, 2008 from the Honorable James Orenstein, United States Magistrate Judge. No objections have been filed. Accordingly, the court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. See Advisory Comm. Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); accord Edwards v. Town of Huntington, No. 05 Civ. 339 (NGG) (AKT), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50074, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. July 11, 2007); McKoy v. Henderson, No. 05 Civ. 1535 (DAB), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15673, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. March 5, 2007). Having reviewed the record, I find no clear error. I hereby adopt the Report and Recommendation, in its entirety, as the opinion of the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Therefore, petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Because Mr. Manino has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (1996), no certificate of appealability will be granted. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
SO ORDERED.