UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________________________

CURTIS WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

-v- 9:22-CV-369 (AJB/ML)

MARK MILLER, Superintendent,

Respondent. _____________________________________

APPEARANCES: OF COUNSEL:

CURTIS WILLIAMS Petitioner, Pro Se 17-A-1846 Fishkill Correctional Facility P.O. Box 1245 Beacon, NY 12508

HON. LETITIA JAMES JALINA J. HUDSON, ESQ. New York State Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent 28 Liberty Street, 14th Floor New York, NY 10005

Hon. Anthony Brindisi, U.S. District Judge:

ORDER ON REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

On April 20, 2022, pro se petitioner Curtis Williams (“petitioner”) filed this habeas corpus petition under

challenging his conviction by guilty plea in Supreme Court, Albany County to attempted criminal possession of a weapon. Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”). Dkt. No. 3. The matter was assigned to Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas J. McAvoy, who granted petitioner’s IFP Application and directed respondent to answer the petition. Dkt. No. 6. Thereafter, the petition was fully briefed. Dkt. Nos. 22–25, 34. On April 23, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric advised by Report & Recommendation (“R&R”) that the petition be denied and dismissed. Dkt. No. 37. Briefly

stated, Judge Lovric concluded that petitioner’s first ground for habeas relief—that police improperly arrested him on the underlying charges—failed because, consistent with Stone v. Powell,

(1976), petitioner could not show that New York State courts did not provide him with an adequate opportunity to litigate that claim. Dkt. No. 37 at 10–13. As for petitioner’s second ground for habeas relief, which was based on the allegedly unduly suggestive nature of a photo array used by law enforcement, Judge Lovric determined that the state court’s decision to deny petitioner’s motion to suppress on this basis (and the Appellate Division’s rejection of that argument on appeal) was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court precedent, which was sufficient to warrant the denial of habeas relief under these circumstances. Dkt. No. 37 at 13–15. Finally, as to grounds

three and four, Judge Lovric concluded that those claims failed on the merits.

at 15–17. Petitioner has lodged objections. Dkt. Nos. 43–44. Broadly speaking, those objections restate the arguments made in petitioner’s underlying briefing, i.e., they are variations of the same arguments that Judge Lovric’s analyzed and rejected in the R&R. See

The matter has been reassigned to this Court for a decision. Dkt. No. 45. Upon de novo review, Judge Lovric’s R&R is accepted and will be adopted. See

(b)(1)(C). Therefore, it is ORDERED that 1. The Report & Recommendation (Dkt. No. 37) is ACCEPTED; 2. The petition is DENIED and DISMISSED; and 3. No Certificate of Appealability will be issued. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate the pending motion and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 15, 2025 ° , Utica, New York. Anthony J. Brindisj U.S. District Judg

-3-