UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

JERRY MASSEY,

Plaintiff, 9:18-cv-483 (BKS/TWD)

v.

H. GRAHAM,

Respondent.

Appearances: Plaintiff pro se: Jerry Massey 15-B-1907 Auburn Correctional Facility P.O. Box 618 Auburn, NY 13021 For Defendant: Letitia James Attorney General for the State of New York Michelle Elaine Maerov 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Hon. Brenda K. Sannes, United States District Judge: MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER On April 20, 2018, Plaintiff pro se Jerry Massey filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus under

challenging his conviction, following a guilty plea, of burglary in the second degree. (Dkt. No. 1). On September 7, 2018, Defendant filed an answer, accompanied by the state court records related to the matter. (Dkt. Nos. 6-8). Petitioner filed a traverse on October 5, 2018. (Dkt. No. 10). This matter was assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks who, on August 20, 2021, issued a Report-Recommendation recommending that Petitioner’s petition be denied and dismissed, and that no certificate of appealability be issued. (Dkt. No. 13). Magistrate Judge Dancks advised the parties that under

(b)(1), they had fourteen days within which to file written objections to the report, and that the failure to object to the report within fourteen days would preclude appellate review. (Dkt. No. 13, at 15). No objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed. As no objections to the Report-Recommendation have been filed, and the time for filing objections has expired, the Court reviews the Report-Recommendation for clear error. See Petersen v. Astrue,

(N.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment. Having reviewed the Report-Recommendation for clear error and found none, the Court adopts the Report-Recommendation. For these reasons, it is ORDERED that the Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 13) is ADOPTED; and it is further ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED and DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability (“COA”) is issued because Petitioner has failed to make “‘a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” as required by

(c)(2). Any further request for a COA must be addressed to the Court of Appeals (Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)); and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk serve a copy of this Order upon the parties in accordance with the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2021 Aenrdea kK nannies Syracuse, New York Brendak Sannce OOSO*~S~S* U.S. District Judge