Summary
reviewing a report and recommendation for clear error where the "[p]etitioner's objections— even construed liberally—repeat arguments that [he] has previously made, and do not allege . . . any specific errors"
Summary of this case from Gonzalez v. StanfordOpinion
03 Civ. 3319 (KMW) (FM).
September 14, 2007
ORDER
Petitioner Albert Williams ("Petitioner") is currently serving two concurrent terms of twenty-five years to life after a jury convicted him of first-degree rape and first-degree sodomy. He has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing: (1) that his speedy trial rights were violated; and (2) that he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel. Petitioner subsequently withdrew his speedy trial claim.
Magistrate Judge Frank Maas issued a Report and Recommendation (the "R R") recommending that the Court deny the habeas petition. Petitioner timely filed objections to the R R.
The R R, familiarity with which is assumed, thoroughly recounts the facts of Petitioner's criminal case and its procedural history.
The Court notes at the outset that "pro se litigants generally are entitled to a liberal construction of their pleadings, which should be read `to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.'" Green v. United States, 260 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996); Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 (2d Cir. 1981). When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the appropriate standard of review to be applied by the reviewing district court depends on whether objections are filed. See Nuetzel v. Walsh, No. 00-CV-8776, 2006 WL 2742000, at *1, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69583, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2006). Where, as here, "objections are merely perfunctory responses, argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition, reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error.'" Id. (quoting Edwards v. Fischer, 414 F. Supp. 2d 342, 346-47 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)). Because Petitioner's objections — even construed liberally — repeat arguments that Petitioner has previously made, and do not allege that Magistrate Judge Maas made any specific errors, the Court will review the R R for clear error. See id.
The Court has reviewed the R R, and finds it to be well-reasoned and free of any "clear error on the face of the record." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) advisory committee's note; see also Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). The Court therefore accepts and adopts the R R.
Accordingly, Petitioner's habeas petition [#1] is denied. A certificate of appealability will not issue because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the civil case associated with this petition (03 cv 3319). Any pending motions are moot.
SO ORDERED.