Butler v. Heath

Butler v. Heath

Petitioner:	Denard Butler
Respondent:	Phillip Heath
Case Number:	1:2012cv03327
Filed:	April 26, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	New York
Presiding Judge:	Loretta A. Preska
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
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
May 22, 2015	Filing 24 ORDER for 22 Report and Recommendations. I have reviewed the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman, dated February 18, 2015, which recommends that I deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by pro se petitioner Denard Butler pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Although petitioner was given the opportunity to file objections to the R&R by April 19, 2015, he failed to do so. Based on my independent review, I hereby adopt the thoro ugh and thoughtful R&R in full. In accordance with the R&R, the instant habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice. Because petitioner's failure to file objections precludes appellate review, this Court will not issue a certificate of appealabi lity. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992) ("We have adopted the rule that failure to object timely to a report waives any further judicial review of the report."). The Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss the instant petition and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/22/2015) (ajs)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 22, 2015

Filing 24 ORDER for 22 Report and Recommendations. I have reviewed the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman, dated February 18, 2015, which recommends that I deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus brought by pro se petitioner Denard Butler pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Although petitioner was given the opportunity to file objections to the R&R by April 19, 2015, he failed to do so. Based on my independent review, I hereby adopt the thoro ugh and thoughtful R&R in full. In accordance with the R&R, the instant habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice. Because petitioner's failure to file objections precludes appellate review, this Court will not issue a certificate of appealabi lity. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Frank v. Johnson, 968 F.2d 298, 300 (2d Cir. 1992) ("We have adopted the rule that failure to object timely to a report waives any further judicial review of the report."). The Clerk of the Court is directed to dismiss the instant petition and close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/22/2015) (ajs)

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: Butler v. Heath
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Denard Butler
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: Phillip Heath
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?