Saez v. United States
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-08425
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Saez v. United States, Judge Engelmayer denied Saez’s post-conviction petition after adopting an unobjected-to magistrate judge’s report.
Jonathan Saez’s post-conviction petition was denied. The United States prevailed in this proceeding, and the case was closed; the court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Jonathan Saez, representing himself, asked the court to set aside his federal conviction under a law allowing prisoners to challenge their convictions or sentences after judgment. The government opposed the petition, and Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a report recommending how the court should resolve it.
Neither side filed timely objections to the report. The court therefore reviewed the report for obvious error and adopted it in full, but this opinion does not describe the report’s underlying reasoning.
Judge Engelmayer denied Saez’s petition, declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The court also stated that the parties’ failure to object waived appellate review, directed the clerk to close the case, and ordered a copy of the order mailed to Saez.
The detailed version
- Saez v. United States · No. 1:18-cv-08425
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 19, 2020
Background
Jonathan Saez, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. That statute allows a federal prisoner to challenge a conviction or sentence after judgment. The United States opposed the petition. The court had referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, who issued a Report and Recommendation on May 20, 2020.
Review of the Report
A district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s recommended decision. When a party makes a timely objection, the district judge reviews the challenged portions independently. When no timely objection is filed, the district judge reviews the report only for clear error—an obvious mistake on the face of the record.
Neither party timely objected to Judge Aaron’s report. The court reviewed the report and found no facial error in its conclusions. It therefore adopted the report in its entirety. This opinion does not state the report’s substantive reasoning or identify the specific grounds Saez raised in his petition.
Ruling
Judge Engelmayer denied the petition. The court also stated that each party’s failure to object timely waived appellate review. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability, meaning the court did not authorize an appeal under that certificate requirement, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail Saez a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.