UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________ PEDRO ROMERO, 9:18-cv-381 Petitioner, (GLS/ATB) v. CHRISTOPHER MILLER, Respondent. ________________________________ ORDER On April 18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter issued a Report-Recommendation (R&R), which recommends that petitioner pro se Pedro Romero’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, (Pet., Dkt. No. 1), be

denied and dismissed. (Dkt. No. 14.) Pending before the court are Romero’s objections to the R&R. (Dkt. No. 15.) Only specific objections warrant de novo review. See Almonte v. N.Y. State Div. of Parole, No. Civ. 904CV484,

, at *3-5

(N.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2006). Objections that are general, conclusory, frivolous, or a mere reiteration of an argument already made to the Magistrate Judge trigger only clear error review. See id. at *4-5.

To the extent that Romero raises specific objections, he misapprehends the law. For instance, Romero argues that he “did not voluntarily elect to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate

judge,” and that he, instead, “expected the entire panel of District Court Judge’s to consider his petition.” (Dkt. No. 15 at 2-3.) The court has previously recited the authority afforded both by statute and rule to refer

habeas corpus petitions to magistrate judges, and the standards of review this court employs when evaluating all report and recommendation orders. See Almonte,

, at *2-3. Accordingly, Romero’s argument is fundamentally flawed because Romero does not have to “voluntarily

elect to consent” to Judge Baxter’s review of his petition and proposed recommendation. See

(b); N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(a). Further, there are no “adverse substantive consequences,” (Dkt. No. 15 at 2), to

Romero because all report and recommendation orders are reviewed by the district court, and the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate

judge.” Almonte,

, at *3 (citations omitted). Romero’s other “specific” objection fares no better. Romero argues that Judge Baxter’s “iteration of the actual innocence standard are [sic] superfluous and not at all relevant,” (Dkt. No. 15 at 9), but, again, he is simply

2 mistaken. Judge Baxter’s analysis of an “actual innocence” claim is relevant, because it addresses Romero’s argument that “if the court

declines to address the procedurally defaulted claim, there will be a fundamental miscarriage of justice.” (Dkt. No. 14 at 16-17); see Rivas v. Fischer,

(2d Cir. 2012).

Romero’s remaining arguments are general, conclusory, and reiterate his original arguments, and, thus, are reviewed only for clear error. Finding no clear error, the R&R, (Dkt. No. 14), is adopted in its entirety.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14) is ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that the petition (Pet.) is DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability pursuant to

(c) shall issue; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk provide a copy of this Order to the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 November 5, 2019 L. Albany, New York é 1S. District Judge