McCloud v. Perez
- Alison Nathan
- 1:17-cv-01827
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In McCloud v. Perez, Judge Nathan denied McCloud’s petition, adopted a magistrate judge’s recommendation, and closed the case.
Cornell McCloud, whose petition was denied and whose case was closed; the judgment also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In McCloud v. Perez, Cornell McCloud filed a petition challenging his custody. The available judgment does not explain the petition’s underlying claims or the court’s reasoning.
The court adopted Judge Fox’s report and recommendation and denied McCloud’s petition. It also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, stating that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and closed the case.
Judge Alison Nathan was the district judge identified for the case. The judgment was dated May 28, 2020, and referred to an Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2020, but that Opinion and Order was not provided here.
The detailed version
- McCloud v. Perez · No. 1:17-cv-01827
- Alison Nathan
- May 28, 2020
Background
Cornell McCloud was the petitioner, and Ada Perez was the respondent. The document is a judgment concerning McCloud’s petition challenging custody. It refers to an earlier Opinion and Order dated May 27, 2020, but that opinion is not included in the provided text. As a result, the underlying claims and reasoning cannot be determined from this document alone.
Ruling
The judgment states that Judge Fox’s Report and Recommendation was adopted and that McCloud’s petition was denied. It further states that the court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Accordingly, permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied for purposes of an appeal, and the case was closed.
Effect
The available document records a denial of the petition and closure of the case. It does not state whether the petition was denied on the merits or on a procedural ground. Because the referenced Opinion and Order is unavailable, the court’s substantive reasoning and the precise basis for the denial cannot be summarized reliably.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.