Sims v. Artus

Sims v. Artus

Petitioner:	Quavas Sims
Respondent:	Dale Artus
Case Number:	1:2014cv04734
Filed:	June 11, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Wyoming
Presiding Judge:	Valerie E. Caproni
Presiding Judge:	Debra C. Freeman
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
October 28, 2016	Filing 62 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 54 Report and Recommendations. Even when construed liberally, Sims's objections, to the extent that they are timely, see Garcia v. Graham, No. 15 Civ. 1606, 2016 WL 1718389, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. A pril 29, 2016) (applying the "mailbox rule" to filings by pro se prisoners), largely repeat and rehash the arguments set forth in his original petition. Applying a clear-error standard of review relative to the issues raised by those object ions, the Court concludes that the Report is free of clear error. To the extent Sims objects on the grounds that the Report "penalize[d]" him with respect to certain evidence, careful review of the Report again reveals no error in the Repor t's conclusions. Sims asserts that he was penalized "for comparing record based matter, with off record documentary evidence, in an attempt to establish his factual contentions." (Objections at 19) It is not entirely clear what Sims me ans; the only issue discussed in the Report in which record evidence as compared to non-record evidence would have been relevant was with respect to Sims's ineffective-assistance claim regarding his counsel's alleged failure to introduce ce rtain documents into evidence. To the extent that this is a validly articulated objection, the Court has reviewed Sims's claim de novo. For all of the reasons articulated in the Report, the Court concurs that Sims has not stated an ineffective-a ssistance claim regarding counsel's failure to introduce certain evidence because Sims has not demonstrated prejudice. (See Report at 39) Sims's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Sims has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a federalright pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and appellate review therefore is not warranted. Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court also finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The Clerk of Court respectfully is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/28/2016) (ama) Modified on 10/28/2016 (ama).

Date Filed

Document Text

October 28, 2016

Filing 62 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 54 Report and Recommendations. Even when construed liberally, Sims's objections, to the extent that they are timely, see Garcia v. Graham, No. 15 Civ. 1606, 2016 WL 1718389, at *1 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. A pril 29, 2016) (applying the "mailbox rule" to filings by pro se prisoners), largely repeat and rehash the arguments set forth in his original petition. Applying a clear-error standard of review relative to the issues raised by those object ions, the Court concludes that the Report is free of clear error. To the extent Sims objects on the grounds that the Report "penalize[d]" him with respect to certain evidence, careful review of the Report again reveals no error in the Repor t's conclusions. Sims asserts that he was penalized "for comparing record based matter, with off record documentary evidence, in an attempt to establish his factual contentions." (Objections at 19) It is not entirely clear what Sims me ans; the only issue discussed in the Report in which record evidence as compared to non-record evidence would have been relevant was with respect to Sims's ineffective-assistance claim regarding his counsel's alleged failure to introduce ce rtain documents into evidence. To the extent that this is a validly articulated objection, the Court has reviewed Sims's claim de novo. For all of the reasons articulated in the Report, the Court concurs that Sims has not stated an ineffective-a ssistance claim regarding counsel's failure to introduce certain evidence because Sims has not demonstrated prejudice. (See Report at 39) Sims's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. The Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Sims has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a federalright pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and appellate review therefore is not warranted. Love v. McCray, 413 F.3d 192, 195 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court also finds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962). The Clerk of Court respectfully is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Valerie E. Caproni on 10/28/2016) (ama) Modified on 10/28/2016 (ama).

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: Sims v. Artus
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Quavas Sims
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: Dale Artus
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?