Ruffin v. Superintendent, No. 9:2018cv00061 - Document 17 (N.D.N.Y 2019)
Court Description: DECISION and ORDER: ORDERED that 1. Dkt. 16 Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole; 2. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED; and 3. 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 4/30/2019. (Decision and Order mailed to Petitioner by regular mail). (rar)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ruffin v. Superintendent Doc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------ANTHONY RUFFIN, Petitioner, -v- 9:18-CV-61 (DNH/ATB) SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: ANTHONY RUFFIN Petittioner pro se 10-B-0042 Elmira Correctional Facility P.O. Box 500 Elmira, NY 14902 HON. LETITIA JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Attorney for Respondent 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 MATTHEW B. KELLER, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Pro se petitioner Anthony Ruffin brought this petition for habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 5, 2019, the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, advised, by Report-Recommendation, that the petition be dismissed and no certificate of appealability be issued. No objections to the Report-Recommendation were filed. Dockets.Justia.com Based upon a careful review of entire file and the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, the Report-Recommendation is accepted in whole. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED; 2. 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; and 3. The Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules, enter judgment accordingly, and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 30, 2019 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.
