Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 27, 2023

Mitchell v. Miller

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:21-cv-04744
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mitchell v. Miller, Judge Woods adopted the recommendation, denied the petition, denied appeal-related requests, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Kwamiemitchell’s petition was denied. The judgment also denied fee-free status for an appeal and a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.

What happened

In Mitchell v. Miller, Kwamiemitchell petitioned against Supt. Mark Miller. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims or the recommendation’s reasoning.

The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. It denied the petition, denied fee-free status for an appeal, denied a certificate of appealability, and closed the case.

Judge Gregory Woods’s court also stated that an appeal would not be in good faith and that Kwamiemitchell had not made the required substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mitchell v. Miller · No. 1:21-cv-04744
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Jan. 27, 2023

Background

Kwamiemitchell was the petitioner, and Supt. Mark Miller was the respondent. The opinion is a judgment referring to an earlier report and recommendation (R&R). It does not state the petition’s underlying legal claims or explain the R&R’s substantive reasoning.

Court’s Analysis

The court reviewed the R&R for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake apparent from the record. The court found no clear error and accepted and adopted the R&R in its entirety. The judgment states that the petition was denied for the reasons given in the R&R.

Disposition

The petition was denied. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. It also denied a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 because Kwamiemitchell had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The case was closed.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.