Daniels v. Lee
- Analisa Torres
- 1:17-cv-07922
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Daniels v. Lee, Judge Torres adopted an unopposed report, denied Christopher Daniels’s habeas petition, and dismissed the action.
Christopher Daniels’s habeas petition was denied and his action was dismissed; William Lee was the respondent.
What happened
In Daniels v. Lee, Christopher Daniels petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus against William Lee, identified as the superintendent of Eastern New York Correctional Facility. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying arguments.
No one objected to the report and recommendation prepared by Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. The court reviewed that report for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. The court also said that arguments Lee had previously filed did not amount to objections and were not necessary to resolve the petition.
Judge Analisa Torres denied Daniels’s habeas petition and dismissed the action. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail the order to Daniels, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- Daniels v. Lee · No. 1:17-cv-07922
- Analisa Torres
- Sept. 29, 2022
Background
Christopher Daniels filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against William Lee, superintendent of Eastern New York Correctional Facility. The order does not state the petition’s underlying claims or the reasoning in the report and recommendation.
Court’s Review
Judge Analisa Torres received a report and recommendation from Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. Because there were no objections, the court reviewed the report for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.
The court noted that Lee asked it to consider arguments from a previously filed legal memorandum in addition to Judge Lehrburger’s reasons. The court determined that this request was not an objection to the report and recommendation and said it was unnecessary to consider those alternative arguments to resolve the petition.
Disposition
The court denied Daniels’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the action. It directed the clerk to close the case and mail a copy of the order to Daniels, who was proceeding without a lawyer. The order does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.