Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 24, 2021

Colon v. The City of New York

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:20-cv-02263
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Colon v. City of New York, Judge Schofield adopted a recommendation, dismissed unexhausted claims, and denied the habeas petition.

Who this affects

Serafin Colon, the self-represented petitioner, and the respondents, including The City of New York.

What happened

In Colon v. The City of New York, Serafin Colon filed a petition challenging his custody under a federal law that allows state prisoners to seek federal review. The matter was sent to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox, who recommended dismissing claims that Colon had not first pursued through the required state process and denying the remaining claims.

No timely objections were filed to the recommendation. Judge Lorna G. Schofield therefore reviewed the record for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake, rather than conducting the more searching review that can apply when objections are filed.

Judge Schofield found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, dismissed the unexhausted claims, and denied the petition. The court directed the clerk to close the case and mail the order to Colon, who was representing himself.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Colon v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-02263
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
May 24, 2021

Background

Serafin Colon filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on March 12, 2020. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox for habeas-corpus proceedings.

Report and Recommendation

On May 3, 2021, Judge Fox issued a Report and Recommendation. It recommended dismissing the claims that had not been exhausted, meaning Colon had not completed the required state-court process for those claims, and denying the remaining claims.

The deadline for objections was 14 days after the Report and Recommendation was served. No timely objections were filed.

Court’s Analysis and Ruling

When no timely objection is filed, the district court reviews the magistrate judge’s recommendation for clear error on the face of the record. Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error in the recommendations to dismiss the unexhausted claims and deny the exhausted claims.

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. The unexhausted claims were dismissed, and the petition was denied. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail a copy of the order to Colon, who was proceeding without a lawyer.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.