TES DISTR] KD □□ FILED Leo UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT iS □□ WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUL 09 2025 Lig ee Wp ke LOEWenGuTt x wh TERN DISTRICLS JOSHUA T. DEMELLIER, Petitioner, Vv. 21-CV-748 (JLS) SUPERINTENDENT LAMANA, Five Points Correctional Facility, Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER Pro se Petitioner Joshua T. DeMellier, an inmate at the Five Points Correctional Facility, submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

. Dkt. 1. DeMellier alleges that he was convicted of attempted murder in Chemung County Court in Elmira, New York, in violation of his constitutional rights. Specifically, DeMellier seeks federal habeas relief on the grounds that (1) the trial court erred in allowing the prosecution to recall the shooting victim to the stand; (2) the trial court erred in not taking control of the shooting victim during cross-examination, and (3) his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise, on direct appeal, a claim of ineffective assistance by trial counsel. Dkt. 1 at 5-8. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer for all pretrial matters, pursuant to

(b)(1)(B)-(C). See Dkt. 20. On April 25, 2025, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Dkt. 26)

recommending that the petition be denied and that a certificate of appealability also be denied.

. DeMellier objected to the R&R. Dkt. 29. Respondent filed a response, in which Respondent argued that DeMellier’s objections do not address his Confrontation Clause claim or ineffective appellate counsel claim, do not explain why the R&R erred in its analysis of his due process claim, and otherwise raise entirely new claims that were not asserted in the petition. Dkt. 31 at 1-2. DeMellier replied. Dkt. 32. A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge.

(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which a party objects. See

(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither

nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). This Court carefully reviewed Judge Roemer’s R&R, the parties’ objections and related submissions, and the relevant record. Based on that review, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R. The petition is denied, and no certificate of appealability is issued.

1 Any new claims that DeMellier raises in his objections offer no basis for relief, for the reasons set forth in Dkt. 31.

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the petition (Dkt. 1) is DENIED in its entirety and on the merits. Pursuant to

(c)(1), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability because DeMellier has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2). The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 9, 2025 Buffalo, New York i “lhl. \ k= Ms □□ JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. ow UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE