Scaringe v. LaClair, No. 9:2019cv00084 - Document 22 (N.D.N.Y 2020)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER: Based upon a de novo review of the # 19 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 the # 1 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED; and no Certificate of Appealability shall be issued. Signed by Judge David N. Hurd on January 6, 2020. (Copy served via regular mail)(rep)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Scaringe v. LaClair Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------MICHAEL J. SCARINGE, Petitioner, -v- 9:19-CV-84 (DNH/ATB) DARWIN LACLAIR, Superintendent, Respondent. -------------------------------APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: MICHAEL J. SCARINGE Petitioner, Pro Se c/o M. Graves 11 Valdepenas Lane Clifton Park, NY 12065 HON. LETITIA JAMES Attorney General for the State of New York Attorney for Respondent 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 DENNIS A. RAMBAUD, ESQ. Ass't Attorney General DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Petitioner Michael J. Scaringe brought this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 15, 2019, the Honorable Andrew T. Baxter, United States Magistrate Judge, advised by Report-Recommendation that the petition be denied and dismissed and that no certificate of appealability be issued. Petitioner filed timely Dockets.Justia.com objections to the Report-Recommendation.1 Based upon a de novo review 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. No Certificate of Appealability shall be issued. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 6, 2020 Utica, New York. 1 It is a bit unclear whether plaintiff's submission is in fact his objection, or whether it indicates his intention to subsequently file an objection. Regardless, there have been no other submissions to date. -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.
