Thompson v. Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility, No. 1:2016cv01711 - Document 10 (E.D.N.Y. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER: I have reviewed the record and find no clear error in Judge Bloom's recommendation that the petition be denied. Since the petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and to close the case. Ordered by Judge Ann M. Donnelly on 12/13/2017. (Greene, Donna)

Download PDF
Thompson v. Superintendent, Sing Sing Correctional Facility Doc. 10 FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE -LERK'S OFFI' US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. RICT COURT! UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT * DEC 1 3 2017 EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BROOKLYN OFFICE X SHERWIN THOMPSON, Petitioner, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - against- i4cv-01711(AMD) (LB) SUPERINTENDENT,SING SING CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Respondent. X ANN M.DONNELLY,District Judge. The pro se petitioner, Sherwin Thompson, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2010 New York conviction for Manslaughter in the First Degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 125.20), Criminal Facilitation in the Second Degree(N.Y. Penal Law § 115.05), and two counts of Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Second Degree (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.03(l)(b),(3)). The petitioner claims that the prosecutor made unfair appeals to his jury's sympathy and that the trial judge made a variety of errors, including permitting the admission of gruesome photographs, allowing the prosecutor to impeach her own witness and to introduce an eye-witness' show-up identification, and permitting another prosecutor to testify about the petitioner's statements in a proffer session. The petitioner also argues that his appellate lawyer was ineffective. I referred the petition to Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom for a report and recommendation. On November 21, 2017, Judge Bloom issued a thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendation("R&R"),recommending that I deny the petition in its entirety. The R&R was Dockets.Justia.com mailed to the petitioner on the same day. Since then, no party has objected to the R&R, and the time to do so has passed. A district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistratejudge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). To accept those portions of the R&R to which no timely objection has been made,"a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record." v. N. Am. Globex Fund LP., 823 F.Supp.2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011)(internal quotation marks omitted). I have reviewed the record and find no clear error in Judge Bloom's recommendation that the petition be denied. Since the petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," a Certificate of Appealability shall not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and to close the case. SO ORDERED. s/Ann M. Donnelly Ann Donnelly United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 13, 2017

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.