Harrell v. The People of The State of New York
- Loretta Preska
- 1:17-cv-00758
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Harrell v. Chappius, Judge Preska denied James Harrell’s federal custody petition and denied a certificate allowing an appeal.
James Harrell’s petition challenging his custody was denied, and he was denied a certificate of appealability. The judgment names Paul Chappius, Jr. as the respondent.
What happened
In Harrell v. Chappius, James Harrell asked the court for a federal order challenging his custody under a law governing state prisoners. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended denying the petition.
No party objected to the recommendation. The court reviewed it for clear error, found none, adopted it in full, and denied Harrell’s petition.
Judge Preska also denied a certificate of appealability because Harrell had not shown that a constitutional right was denied.
The detailed version
- Harrell v. The People of The State of New York · No. 1:17-cv-00758
- Loretta Preska
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
James Harrell filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, seeking federal review of his custody. The judgment states that, on January 6, 2020, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the petition be denied in its entirety. The parties had fourteen days to object, but no objections were filed.
Court’s Review
Because no timely objections were made, the district court reviewed the record and the Report and Recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the court’s opinion.
Ruling
The court denied Harrell’s petition. It also denied a certificate of appealability, finding that Harrell had not demonstrated a denial of a constitutional right. Judge Loretta Preska is identified in the supplied case information; the judgment itself is signed by the clerk of court and refers to the court’s November 25, 2020 Order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.