Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 30, 2025

Stewart v. Collado

Full caption

Wayne Stewart v. Jaifa Collado, Executive Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-05197
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wayne Stewart v. Jaifa Collado, Judge Caproni adopted the unobjected-to recommendation and denied Stewart’s petition challenging his custody.

Who this affects

Wayne Stewart’s § 2254 petition was denied, Jaifa Collado remained the respondent, and the case was closed.

What happened

Wayne Stewart v. Jaifa Collado concerns a petition Stewart filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims.

Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo recommended denying the petition. Neither side filed objections, although Stewart requested more time several times; the court found no clear error in the recommendation.

Judge Valerie Caproni adopted the recommendation in full, denied the petition, directed the Clerk to mail Stewart a copy of the order, and ordered the case closed. The court also stated that failing to object prevented further appellate review.

The detailed version

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

Case
Stewart v. Collado · No. 1:21-cv-05197
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Oct. 30, 2025

Background

Wayne Stewart filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 against Jaifa Collado, identified in the caption as Executive Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The opinion does not provide the petition’s underlying claims or explain the recommendation’s merits analysis.

The court had referred the case to Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo for a Report and Recommendation, a document advising the district judge how to resolve the petition. On February 7, 2025, Judge Ricardo recommended that the petition be denied.

Objections and Review

The recommendation advised the parties that they had 14 days to file written objections and warned that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. Neither party filed objections. The order’s footnote states that Stewart sent several letters requesting extensions, but the court denied his later requests after extending the deadline once. Stewart did not include his objections in those letters, and the court did not receive any objections.

Because there were no objections, Judge Caproni reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error on the face of the record. This order does not independently discuss the underlying grounds for Stewart’s petition.

Disposition

Judge Caproni ordered that the Report and Recommendation be adopted in full and that the petition be denied. The Clerk was directed to mail Stewart a copy of the order using the specified Department of Corrections and Community Supervision procedures and to close the case. The court also stated that the failure to file timely objections 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.