UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X Christian Ferdinand,

Petitioner, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 22-CV-05645 (DG) (JAM) -against-

Superintendent Joseph Corey,

Respondent. -----------------------------------------------------------------X DIANE GUJARATI, United States District Judge: Petitioner Christian Ferdinand, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, challenging his 2015 conviction in New York Supreme Court, Kings County of murder in the second degree and tampering with physical evidence. See Petition, ECF No. 1; see also Reply in Support of Habeas Corpus Petition, ECF No. 8. Respondent opposed the Petition. See ECF No. 6.1 On May 7, 2024, the undersigned referred the Petition to Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo for a report and recommendation. See May 7, 2024 Order. On July 2, 2024, Judge Marutollo issued a Report and Recommendation (the “R&R”) recommending that the Court deny the Petition. See generally R&R, ECF No. 9 (setting forth the factual and procedural background, the parties’ arguments, and the applicable law and addressing each of the three grounds raised by Petitioner in the Petition).2

1 Familiarity with the procedural history and background of this action is assumed herein.

2 Judge Marutollo also stated that “[a]s Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of any constitutional right, no certificate of appealability should be issued” and recommended that “for purposes of an appeal in forma pauperis, the Court should certify pursuant to

(a) that any appeal from a judgment denying [the Petition] would not be taken in good faith.” See R&R at 51. After receiving deadline extensions, see Orders of July 19, 2024 and September 20, 2024, Petitioner filed objections to the R&R, see ECF No. 15 (dated December 15, 2024 and received by the Court on December 26, 2024). In his objections filing, Petitioner states that he objects to the R&R and then proceeds to, inter alia, reference various portions of the Background section

of the R&R, taking issue with certain factual recitations set forth therein. See generally ECF No. 15.3 Respondent did not file any objections to the R&R or respond to Petitioner’s objections. See generally docket. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”

(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (providing that a district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to”); Arista

Recs., LLC v. Doe 3,

(2d Cir. 2010) (“As to a dispositive matter, any part of the magistrate judge’s recommendation that has been properly objected to must be reviewed by the district judge de novo.”); Lorick v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, No. 18-CV-07178,

, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2022). To accept those portions of an R&R to which no timely objection has been made, however, “a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.” Lorick,

, at *2 (quoting Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10-CV-05950,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014)); see

3 In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s filings in this action. See Erickson v. Pardus,

(2007). also Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund, L.P.,

(E.D.N.Y. 2011). In light of Petitioner’s objections to the R&R, and out of an abundance of caution, the Court reviews de novo the entirety of the R&R. A review of the R&R, the record, and the applicable law reveals that Judge Marutollo properly concluded that the Petition, ECF No. 1,

should be denied; that no certificate of appealability should be issued; and that the Court should certify pursuant to

(a) that any appeal from a judgment denying the Petition would not be taken in good faith. The Court adopts the thorough and well-reasoned R&R.4 * * * The Petition, ECF No. 1, is DENIED. The Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. See

(c)(2). Petitioner, however, has a right to seek a certificate of appealability from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See

(c). The Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies in forma pauperis status for the purpose of

an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962).

4 The Court notes that the R&R contains two typographical errors that are not material to the R&R’s conclusions and recommendations – namely a reference on page six to May 12, 2013 rather than May 13, 2013 and a reference on page fifty to “Loring Job Corps” rather than “Caribou Courthouse.” See R&R at 6, 50. The R&R makes clear that the interview at issue took place on May 13, 2013 at the Caribou Courthouse. See R&R at 5-16, 49-51. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment, close this case, and mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner. SO ORDERED. /s/ Diane Gujarati __ DIANE GUJARATI United States District Judge

Dated: January 13, 2025 Brooklyn, New York