Santana v. Mr. Brown

Santana v. Mr. Brown

Petitioner:	Jose Santana
Respondent:	Mr. Brown
Case Number:	1:2009cv05176
Filed:	June 3, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Westchester
Presiding Judge:	Debra C. Freeman
Presiding Judge:	Jed S. Rakoff
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
June 12, 2013	Filing 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 23 Report and Recommendations: Here, after careful review of the record and parties' submissions, Judge Freeman found that the alleged error by the trial court-the admission over counsel's obje ction of purportedly irrelevant and prejudicial evidence relating to an uncharged sale of heroin by another person--did not render Petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair. In her opinion, issued February 26, 2013, Judge Freeman informed the part ies of their right to file written objections within 14 days of the R&R's issuance. To date, neither party has filed an objection. Having found no error on the face of the record, the Court adopts Judge Freeman's R&R in full. Petitioner 9;s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED in its entirety, and as Petitioner has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 6/12/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (lmb)

Date Filed

Document Text

June 12, 2013

Filing 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 23 Report and Recommendations: Here, after careful review of the record and parties' submissions, Judge Freeman found that the alleged error by the trial court-the admission over counsel's obje ction of purportedly irrelevant and prejudicial evidence relating to an uncharged sale of heroin by another person--did not render Petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair. In her opinion, issued February 26, 2013, Judge Freeman informed the part ies of their right to file written objections within 14 days of the R&R's issuance. To date, neither party has filed an objection. Having found no error on the face of the record, the Court adopts Judge Freeman's R&R in full. Petitioner 9;s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED in its entirety, and as Petitioner has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right," 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 6/12/2013) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (lmb)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Santana v. Mr. Brown
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Jose Santana
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Mr. Brown
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?