UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________________________________ MALIK DAWSON, Petitioner, 9:23-CV-0148 v. (GTS/MJK) PATRICK REARDON, Superintendent, Marcy Correctional Facility, Respondent. ________________________________________ APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL: MALIK DAWSON Petitioner, Pro Se 617 Myrtle Avenue Albany, New York 12208 HON. LETITIA A. JAMES ROBERT C. McIVER, ESQ. Attorney General for the State of New York Assistant Attorney General Counsel for Respondent 25 Liberty Street - 14th Floor New York, New York 10005 GLENN T. SUDDABY, United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER Malik Dawson (“Petitioner”) filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

on February 3, 2023. (Dkt. No. 1.) By Report-Recommendation dated February 5, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Mitchell J. Katz recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed pursuant to

(c)(2), and that a certificate of appealability be denied. (Dkt. No. 19.) 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 Katz’s thorough Report-Recommendation, the Court can find no clear-error in the Report- Recommendation:' Magistrate Judge Katz 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 Katz’s Report-Recommendation (Dkt. No. 19) 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 DISMISSED; and it is further ORDERED that the Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability because Petitioner has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” pursuant to 28 ULS.C. § 2253(c)(2). Dated: March 25, 2025 Syracuse, New York Glenn T. Suddaby U.S. District Judge

! 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).