UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________________ DANIEL BEMISS, Petitioner, 9:23-CV-1249 v. (GTS/TWD) SUPERINTENDENT, Clinton Corr. Fac., Respondent. _____________________________________________ APPEARANCES: DANIEL BEMISS, 20-A-0611 Petitioner, Pro Se Clinton Correctional Facility P.O. Box 2001 Dannemora, New York 12929 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES MARGARET A. CIEPRISZ, ESQ. Attorney General for the State of New York MATTHEW B. KELLER, ESQ. Counsel for Respondent Assistant Attorneys General 28 Liberty Street New York, New York 10005 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Currently before the Court, in this habeas corpus proceeding filed by Daniel Bemiss (“Petitioner”) against the Superintendent of Clinton Correctional Facility (“Respondent”) pursuant to

, are (1) Respondent’s motion to dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for untimeliness, and (2) United States Magistrate Judge Thérèse Wiley Dancks’ Report- Recommendation recommending that Respondent’s motion be granted, the Petition be denied and dismissed, and that no certificate of appealability be issued because Petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of t he denial of a constitutional right” pursuant to

(c)(2). (Dkt. Nos. 12, 17.) Petitioner has not filed an Objection to the Report- Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has expired. (See generally Docket Sheet.) After carefully reviewing the relevant papers herein, including Magistrate Judge Dancks’ thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report- Recommendation:' Magistrate Judge Dancks employed the proper standards, accurately recited the facts, and reasonably applied the law to those facts. (Dkt. No. 17.) As a result, the Report- Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted, Petitioner’s Petition is denied and dismissed, and no certificate of appealability shall be issued. ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Dancks’ Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 17) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further ORDERED that Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 12) is GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED.

! 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.” Id.; 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).

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” pursuant to

(c)(2). Dated: November 15, 2024 Syracuse, New York

Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge