UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________

LEVI MALLOY,

Petitioner, 9:19-CV-0988 v. (GTS/ATB)

M. ROYCE, Superintendent of Green Haven Corr. Facility,

Respondent. _____________________________________________

APPEARANCES:

LEVI MALLOY, 14-A-3996 Petitioner, Pro Se Green Haven Correctional Facility P.O. Box 4000 Stormville, New York 12582

HON. LETITIA A. JAMES LISA E. FLEISCHMANN, 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 filed by Levi Malloy (“Petitioner”) pursuant to

, is the Report-Recommendation of Chief United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter recommending that the Petition be denied and dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability be denied. (Dkt. No. 28.) 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’ 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. 28) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition (Dkt. No. 2) is DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Dated: October 14, 2020 Syracuse, New York —_

Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby 7 Chief U.S. District Judgé

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.” I/d.; 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).