Dzebolo v. Perez, No. 7:2007cv03421 - Document 25 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: having reviewed the Petitioner's and Repondent's papers, as well as all of the other documents on file in this matter, and in the absence of any objections, the Court hereby ADOPTS Judge Yanthis's Report and Recommendation. The Petition is hereby DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close this case. It is SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 10/4/2012) The Clerks Office Has Mailed Copies. (lnl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK x HALINA DZEBOLO, : : Petitioner, : : v. : : ADA PEREZ, Superintendent, Bedford Hills : Correctional Facility, : : Respondent. : x OPINION AND ORDER 07-cv-3421 (ER) RAMOS, D.J.: Halina Dzebolo (the Petitioner ), an incarcerated pro se litigant, filed this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 on April 30, 2007. On the same date, the case was referred to the Honorable George A. Yanthis, United States Magistrate Judge. The case was reassigned to this Court on January 6, 2012. On July 16, 2007, Respondent filed its opposition to the Petition. On January 12, 2012, Judge Yanthis issued his Report and Recommendation (the Report ), recommending that the Petition be denied in its entirety. Petitioner was required to submit any objections she had to the Report by January 30, 2012. No objections were received by that date. By letter dated March 1, 2012, this Court sua sponte enlarged Petitioner s time to submit her objections, if any, by April 1, 2012 and advised her to file the same with the Pro Se Office of the Southern District of New York. The Petitioner did not submit any objections to the Report. Instead, in a series of letter dated March 5, 7, and April 9, 2012, addressed to this Court and the Pro Se Office, she requested that a pro bono attorney be assigned to assist her with her response. In the meantime, the Court had extended her time to respond to June 1, 2012.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
