Smickle v. Superintendent
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-01634
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Randel Smickle v. Superintendent, Judge Rearden denied Smickle’s petition challenging his conviction after finding no clear error in the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Randel Smickle’s federal challenge to his state conviction was denied, and the petition was dismissed and the case closed. The order also denied a certificate of appealability and fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Randel Smickle v. Superintendent, Shawangunk Correctional Facility concerns Smickle’s petition challenging his New York conviction for two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of second-degree robbery. Representing himself, Smickle raised claims involving his lawyer, the evidence, judicial misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, and his sentence.
A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition. Smickle did not object after receiving notice that failing to object could waive further review. The district court nevertheless reviewed the recommendation and found no clear error.
Judge Rearden adopted the recommendation in full and denied the petition. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, denied fee-free status for any appeal, directed the Clerk to dismiss the petition, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Smickle v. Superintendent · No. 1:23-cv-01634
- Rearden
- Dec. 3, 2025
Background
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Randel Smickle, acting without a lawyer, sought federal review of his December 12, 2016 state-court conviction for two counts of first-degree robbery and two counts of second-degree robbery. His amended petition sought to vacate the conviction and raised five grounds: ineffective assistance of trial counsel, a claim that the second-degree robbery conviction was against the weight of the evidence, judicial misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, and an excessive sentence.
The magistrate judge stayed the case while Smickle pursued his ineffective-assistance claim in state court. After the state-court proceedings ended, the respondent answered the petition. Smickle did not file a reply. On October 17, 2025, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied in its entirety.
Review of the Recommendation
The district court explained that objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation ordinarily require fresh review of the challenged portions. When no timely objection is filed, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. Smickle received the recommendation and a warning that failing to object within fourteen days could waive further review, but he filed no objections and did not request more time.
The court held that Smickle had waived judicial review by failing to object. The court nevertheless reviewed the Report and Recommendation and found no clear error. It described the recommendation as well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Disposition
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning Smickle’s request for federal relief from his state conviction. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Smickle had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to dismiss the petition, mail Smickle a copy of the order, and close the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.