Bryant v. Superintendent, No. 9:2017cv01199 - Document 31 (N.D.N.Y 2021)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: It is ORDERED that Petitioner's objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stewart, dkt. # 30 , are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 27 , is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy on 2/3/2021. (Copy served via regular mail)(meb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bryant v. Superintendent Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK __________________________________________ ARNOLD BRYANT, Petitioner, v. 9:17-CV-1199 (TJM/DJS) SUPERINTENDENT, EASTERN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Respondent. ___________________________________________ Thomas J. McAvoy, Sr. U.S. District Judge DECISION & ORDER Petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that his conviction in New York State court on drug charges violated his rights under the United States Constitution and should be vacated. The Court referred the Complaint to the Hon. Daniel J. Stewart, United States Magistrate Judge, for a ReportRecommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c). The Report-Recommendation, dated October 27, 2020, recom mends that the Court dismiss and deny the petition. See dkt. # 27. Magistrate Judge Stewart finds that Petitioner’s claims related to his grand jury proceedings are not cognizable in a habeas corpus petition, that Petitioner has not demonstrated that his counsel operated under any conflict-of-interest that rendered him ineffective, and that the record establishes that Petitioner was not coerced into pleading guilty. Magistrate Judge Stewart also 1 Dockets.Justia.com recommends that the Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability, as no reasonable jurist could disagree with the conclusion in his Report-Recommendation that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of his constitutional rights. Petitioner filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. See dkt. # 30. W hen a party objects to a magistrate judge’s Report-Recommendation, the Court makes a “de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Id. Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the other issues raised in the Petitioner’s objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Stewart for the reasons stated in the ReportRecommendation. It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s objections to the ReportRecommendation of Magistrate Judge Stewart, dkt. # 30, are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 27, is hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby DENIED and DISMISSED. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated:February 3, 2021 2 3
]]>
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.
