Lewis v. Griffin, No. 9:2014cv01411 - Document 20 (N.D.N.Y 2015)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that 16 Report and Recommendation is adopted in whole. ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED; and 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 11/2/15. {order served via regular mail on petitioner}(nas)

Download PDF
Lewis v. Griffin Doc. 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------MILES LEWIS, Petitioner, -v- 9:14-CV-1411 (DNH/ATB) T. GRIFFIN, Superintendent Respondent. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: MILES LEWIS Petitioner, Pro Se 09-A-2520 Eastern NY Correctional Facility Box 338 Napanoch, NY 12458 HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General for the State of New York Attorney for Respondent 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 MICHELLE E. MAEROV, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se petitioner Miles Lewis brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On August 12, 2015, the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report-Recommendation, that the petition be denied. Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. Dockets.Justia.com Based upon a de novo review of the portions of the Report-Recommendation to which petitioner objected, the Report-Recommendation 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 2, 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.