Campbell v. McCarthy
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-02980
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Campbell v. McCarthy, Judge Nathan dismissed Campbell’s federal habeas petition after adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Devaughn Campbell’s § 2254 petition was dismissed; Timothy McCarthy was the respondent. The case was closed, and Campbell was denied a certificate of appealability and permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.
What happened
In Campbell v. McCarthy, Devaughn Campbell, who was representing himself, asked the court for relief under a federal law allowing challenges to state-court convictions or custody. Judge Lehrburger recommended denying the petition.
No objections were filed by the deadline. The court therefore reviewed the recommendation for obvious error and found none. It adopted the recommendation in full and dismissed Campbell’s petition.
Judge Alison J. Nathan also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The clerk was directed to mail the order and recommendation to Campbell and close the case.
The detailed version
- Campbell v. McCarthy · No. 1:19-cv-02980
- Alison Nathan
- Jan. 22, 2021
Background
Devaughn Campbell, the petitioner, represented himself and filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal procedure for challenging state custody. The opinion identifies Timothy McCarthy as superintendent of Auburn Correctional Facility and the respondent. Magistrate Judge Lehrburger issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the petition be denied.
Review of the Recommendation
The court stated that when a party objects to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court generally reviews the challenged portions independently. When no timely objections are filed, the court reviews the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake shown by the record. Campbell filed no objections, and the objection deadline had passed. The court found no clear error.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed Campbell’s § 2254 petition for the reasons stated in that recommendation. This order itself does not describe those underlying reasons, so it does not permit a more specific summary of why the petition was denied. The court also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue because Campbell had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail the order and the Report and Recommendation to Campbell and close the case.
Disposition
The petition was dismissed. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.