Doe v. Perez, No. 9:2013cv00921 - Document 9 (N.D.N.Y 2015)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED, that the 8 Report-Recommendation is adopted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 10, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED. ORDERE D, that the Clerk is directed to close the file. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on 11/23/15. (served on petitioner by regular mail) (alh, )

Download PDF
Doe v. Perez Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------MAXIMO DOE, Petitioner, -v- 9:13-CV-0921 (DNH/DEP) ADA PEREZ, Respondent. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: MAXIMO DOE Petitioner, Pro Se 10-A-3480 Downstate Correctional Facility Box F Fishkill, NY 12524 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Attorney for Respondent 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 HANNAH S. LONG, ESQ. PAUL B. LYONS, ESQ. Ass't Attorneys General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se petitioner Maximo Doe brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 30, 2015, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report-Recommendation, that the petition be denied. Neither petitioner nor respondent timely filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. Dockets.Justia.com Based upon a de novo review of the Report-Recommendation, the ReportRecommendation is adopted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rule 10, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED; and 2. The Clerk is directed to close the file. Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2015 Utica, New York. -2-

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.