Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 28, 2025

Steward v. Napoli

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:24-cv-05758
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Anthony Steward v. Napoli, Judge Abrams adopted the recommendation, granted amendment, dismissed the habeas claims without prejudice, and dismissed the release request.

Who this affects

Anthony Steward’s federal habeas petition and his motions to amend and obtain release or bail; the respondent’s dismissal motion was granted.

What happened

In Anthony Steward v. Napoli, Anthony Steward challenged his jury-trial convictions for several assault, weapon-possession, witness-intimidation, and criminal-contempt offenses through a federal habeas petition. He filed the petition without a lawyer.

The respondent moved to dismiss the petition because Steward had not finished presenting his claims through the required state-court process. Steward moved to amend his petition and separately asked for immediate release or bail. A magistrate judge recommended dismissing claims one through four without prejudice, dismissing claims five through fifteen without prejudice, granting the amendment request, and denying the release request.

No party objected to the recommendation. Judge Ronnie Abrams adopted it after finding no clear error. The court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety without prejudice, granted Steward’s motion to amend, and dismissed his motion for release or bail. The court also directed the clerk to close the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Steward v. Napoli · No. 1:24-cv-05758
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Aug. 28, 2025

Background

Anthony Steward filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure for challenging a state-court conviction or custody. He challenged convictions, entered after a jury trial, for attempted assault in the first degree, assault in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, intimidating a witness, and two counts of criminal contempt in the second degree. The opinion identifies Steward as representing himself.

Motions and Recommendation

The respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that Steward’s claims were unexhausted, meaning they had not been presented through the required state-court process. The motion originally addressed claims one through four, but the court considered it in light of Steward’s proposed amendments. Steward sought to amend two claims and add two more claims. He also sought immediate release or bail.

On July 31, 2025, Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis recommended that the court grant dismissal of claims one through four without prejudice; dismiss claims five through fifteen without prejudice; grant Steward’s motion to amend; and deny his motion for release or bail. The parties had fourteen days to object, but neither party filed an objection.

Ruling

After reviewing the record for clear error, Judge Ronnie Abrams adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The court granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety without prejudice, granted Steward’s motion to amend, and dismissed Steward’s motion for release or bail. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and close the case. The opinion also states that the parties’ failure to object waived and precluded appellate review of the decision.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.