UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ DANIEL CAMPBELL, Petitioner, 9:19-CV-1174 v. (GTS/ATB) JAMIE LAMANNA, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility, Respondent. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: DANIEL CAMPBELL, #236646 Petitioner, Pro Se CNY PC P.O. Box 300 Marcy, New York 13403 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES PAUL B. LYONS, ESQ. Attorney General for the State of New York Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Respondent 28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this habeas corpus proceeding brought by Daniel Campbell (“Petitioner”) pursuant to

, is the Chief United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter’s Report-Recommendation recommending that the Petition be denied and dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability be denied. (Dkt. No. 25.) Petitioner has not filed an Objection to the Report-Recommendation, and the deadline by which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Baxter’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report-Recommendation.' Magistrate Judge Baxter employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. As a result, the Report-Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Petitioner’s Petition is denied and dismissed, and a certificate of appealability is denied. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Baxter’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Dated: May 28, 2020 Syracuse, New York

Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby Chief U.S. District Judg

When no objection is made to a report-recommendation, the Court subjects that report- recommendation to only a clear error review. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition. When performing such a “clear error” review, “the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” □□□□ see also Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826,

, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) (“I am permitted to adopt those sections of [a magistrate judge’s] report to which no specific objection is made, so long as those sections are not facially erroneous.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).