Luna v. Miller
- Rearden
- 1:20-cv-04193
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Luna v. Miller, Judge Rearden adopted a recommendation, denied Luna’s habeas petition, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Edward Luna’s federal challenge to his state-court convictions was denied. Christopher Miller was the named respondent, and the case was closed.
What happened
Edward Luna v. Christopher Miller concerned Luna’s challenge under federal habeas law to his 2013 state-court convictions for selling and possessing controlled substances. Luna filed the case without a lawyer and sought to have his convictions reversed or set aside.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. Luna did not object after receiving notice that objections were due within 14 days. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
In an order dated November 20, 2025, Judge Jennifer H. Rearden adopted the recommendation and denied the petition in its entirety. Judge Rearden also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Luna v. Miller · No. 1:20-cv-04193
- Rearden
- Nov. 20, 2025
Background
Edward Luna filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law allowing a person in state custody to challenge a state-court conviction. Luna proceeded without a lawyer. He challenged his April 11, 2013 state-court convictions for first- and third-degree criminal sale of a controlled substance and two counts of third-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance. The opinion identifies Christopher Miller as the authorized person having custody of Luna.
The court allowed Luna to proceed without paying the filing fee and directed the respondent to answer. The respondent filed opposition papers on August 21, 2020, and Luna did not file a reply. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang later issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied in its entirety. The report was mailed to Luna with a 14-day deadline for objections and warned that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. No objections or request for an extension was filed.
Court’s review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), a district court reviews objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s recommendation from the beginning. When no timely objection is made, the district court need only determine whether the record shows clear error—that is, whether the court is firmly convinced that a mistake was made.
Judge Rearden stated that Luna waived his right to further judicial review by failing to object after receiving the warning. The court nevertheless reviewed the Report and Recommendation and found no clear error. The opinion does not independently set out the Report and Recommendation’s underlying analysis of Luna’s conviction claims.
Ruling and disposition
Judge Rearden adopted Judge Wang’s Report and Recommendation and denied the petition in its entirety. The court also found that Luna had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied, so it declined to issue a certificate of appealability. The court further certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to close the case and mail the order to Luna.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.