Victor E. Johnson, Sr. v. Superintendent Titus

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Cori □ WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK APR 0 2 2026 ee No se VICTOR E. JOHNSON, Sree oe Petitioner, v. 22-CV-142 (JLS) (MJR) SUPERINTENDENT TITUS, Respondent.

DECISION AND ORDER Petitioner Victor E. Johnson, Sr. commenced this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody. Dkt.

1. He alleges that, on August 16, 2019, he was convicted of attempted enterprise corruption and attempted robbery in the second degree in violation of his constitutional rights. See id. at 1. Respondent filed an answer and a memorandum in opposition. Dkt. 24, 25. Petitioner replied. Dkt. 29. The Case has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). See Dkt. 16.

On February 5, 2026, Judge Roemer issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that this Court deny the Petition in its entirety and on its merits. See Dkt. 38 at 27. He further recommended that this Court deny a certificate of appealability because Petitioner “failed to make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.” Jd. Neither party filed objections, and the time to do so has expired.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 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, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on that review, and in the absence of any objections, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Roemer’s recommendation. Thus, for the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the relief sought in the Petition is DENIED and the Petition is DISMISSED.

Further, because Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial ofa constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

Dated: April 2, 2026 fr ) □ Buffalo, New York ( UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE