Paul Amay v. Mark Royce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PAUL AMAY, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT Petitioner, AND RECOMMENDATION -against- 19-CV-11329 (PMH) MARK ROYCE, Respondent.

PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: On August 30, 2011, Paul Amay (“Petitioner”) was convicted, following a guilty plea in the New York State County Court, Putnam County, of one count of second-degree murder in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(1). (See Doc. 10-1 at 3-18). Petitioner was thereafter sentenced to a term of twenty-two years to life imprisonment. (Doc. 10-1 at 19-34).

On December 10, 2019, Petitioner initiated the instant action to challenge the above- referenced conviction by way of Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 2). On January 10, 2020, Judge Nelson S. Román, before whom this matter proceeded before it was reassigned to this Court on April 6, 2020, issued an Order of Reference referring the Petition to Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith, that was then ultimately reassigned to Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik. (Doc. 6; September 18, 2023 ECF Notice of Reassignment).

On October 10, 2025, Magistrate Judge Reznik issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Petition be denied. (Doc. 27). The R&R advised, in pertinent part, as follows: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the parties shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to serve and file written objections. If copies of this Report and Recommendation are served upon the parties by mail, the parties shall have an additional three (3) days, or a total of seventeen (17) days, from service of this Report and Recommendation to serve and file written objections. (Id. at 38). Magistrate Judge Reznik warned further that “[f]ailure to file timely objections to this Report and Recommendation will preclude later appellate review of any order of judgment that will be entered.” (Id.). More than a month has passed since a copy of the R&R was mailed to Petitioner, and no objections have been filed.1 “A district court reviewing a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation ‘may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.’” Antoine v. Warden, No. 20-CV-05130, 2021 WL 4066654, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2021) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). “The district court may adopt those portions of the recommended ruling to which no timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the record.” Olivo v. Graham, No. 15-CV-09938, 2021 WL 3271833, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2021) (citing Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)).

Upon a careful and complete review of the R&R, the Court finds no clear error in Magistrate Judge Reznik’s thorough and well-reasoned analysis, and adopts the R&R in its entirety for the reasons set forth therein. Consequently, the Petition is DENIED.

As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a Certificate of Appealability shall not be issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner and close this case.

1 A copy of the R&R was mailed to Plaintiff on October 14, 2025. (See October 14, 2025 ECF Mailing Receipt).

SO ORDERED: Dated: White Plains, New York November 19, 2025 ( dr Yy PHILIP M. HALPERN United States District Judge