Agosto v. Hufford, No. 1:2013cv04082 - Document 19 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Careful review of the Report reveals that there is no facial error in its conclusions. The petition for habeas corpus is DENIED. The parties' failure to file written objections precludes appellate review of this d ecision. See Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and permission to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the case. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 5/29/2014) (kgo)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X DAVID AGOSTO, : : : Petitioner, : : -v: : H.L. HUFFORD, Warden, : : Respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 5/29/2014 13-CV-4082(VEC)(SN) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge: Pro se petitioner David Agosto filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 11, 2013. In September 2013 this Court ordered the respondent to answer the petition and referred the action to Magistrate Judge Netburn for the preparation of a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On May 9, 2014, Judge Netburn issued her Report and Recommendation to this Court. DISCUSSION In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When specific objections are made, [t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge s disposition that has been properly objected to. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see United States v. Male Juvenile, 121 F.3d 34, 38 (2d Cir. 1997). District courts may accept a Report and Recommendation so long as there is no clear error on the face of the record. Galeana v. Lemongrass on Broadway Corp., No. 10-cv-7270(GBD)(MHD), -- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2014 WL 1364493, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 4, 2014); Phillips v. Reed Group, Ltd., 955 F. Supp. 2d 201, 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). CONCLUSION Careful review of the Report reveals that there is no facial error in its conclusions. The petition for habeas corpus is DENIED. The parties failure to file written objections precludes appellate review of this decision. See Caidor v. Onondaga County, 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and permission to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the case. SO ORDERED: May 29, 2014 New York, New York __________________________________ ___________________________ __ VALERIE CAPRONI United States District Judge

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.