Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 5, 2022

Moreno-Gratini v. Sticht

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:19-cv-05964
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Moreno-Gratini v. Sticht, Judge Woods denied Moreno-Gratini’s federal custody-review petition as procedurally barred and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.

Who this affects

The order directly affected petitioner Merlin Moreno-Gratini and respondent Thomas Sticht. It denied Moreno-Gratini’s petition, denied fee-waiver status for an appeal, entered judgment for the respondent, and closed the case.

What happened

In Moreno-Gratini v. Sticht, Merlin Moreno-Gratini asked the federal court to review his custody under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn recommended denying the petition because the claims were procedurally barred.

No party filed a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court therefore reviewed it for clear error and found none.

Judge Gregory H. Woods accepted and adopted the recommendation and denied Moreno-Gratini’s petition. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, ordered judgment entered for the respondent, directed the Clerk to mail the order to Moreno-Gratini by certified mail, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Moreno-Gratini v. Sticht · No. 1:19-cv-05964
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
May 5, 2022

Background

Merlin Moreno-Gratini filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review his custody. On April 18, 2022, Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn issued a report and recommendation advising that the petition be denied because Moreno-Gratini’s claims were procedurally barred.

Review of the Recommendation

A district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Parties generally have fourteen days to submit specific written objections. Because no objection was submitted within that period, the court reviewed the recommendation for clear error. The court found no clear error.

Ruling

The court accepted and adopted the report and recommendation as to Moreno-Gratini’s petition and denied the petition. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Moreno-Gratini permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The Clerk was ordered to mail the order to Moreno-Gratini by certified mail, enter judgment for the respondent, and close the case.

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.