UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-10050-RGS

ARTHUR E. SALISBURY. Jr., Petitioner

v.

DEAN GRAY, Respondent

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

May 7, 2025 STEARNS, D.J. I agree with Magistrate Judge Kelley’s thorough analysis of the substance of the Petition and her ultimate conclusion that the Petitioner was not denied his constitutional right to a trial by an impartial jury by the refusal of the trial judge to allow his motion to strike for cause certain of the seated jurors based on their responses during voir dire.1 Magistrate Judge Kelley

1 Although the Magistrate Judge based her reasoning on the presumption of correctness that

(e)(1) applies to factual determinations made by the State court, she noted that she would have recommended that the Petition be denied even if the presumption of correctness did not apply. See Report & Rec. (Dkt # 24) at 9. appropriately relied on the findings and conclusions reached by the Massachusetts Appeals Court in a very thoughtful opinion authored by

Englander, J., as well as on the decision of the Supreme Court in Patton v. Yount,

(1984), in making her independent determination that that Petitioner had failed to show any viable ground for habeas relief. Consequently, the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is ADOPTED, and

the Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice.2 The Clerk will enter judgment for the Respondent and close the case.3 SO ORDERED.

/s/ Richard G. Stearns__________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Although Petitioner filed an Objection to the Report and Recommendation, it simply references the arguments laid out in his original Petition without any further elaboration. See Dkt # 27. 3 Petitioner is advised that any request for the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to

is also DENIED, the court seeing no meritorious or substantial basis supporting an appeal.