Eldridge v. The People of the State of New York
- Carter
- 1:19-cv-07763-ALC-SLC
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Eldrige v. People, Judge Carter denied the federal challenge to Eldrige’s conviction and dismissed the case.
Mike Eldrige’s federal challenge to his New York conviction was denied, and the action was dismissed; the respondents prevailed in this proceeding.
What happened
Mike Eldrige filed a federal petition challenging his 2011 New York conviction for attempted second-degree robbery after pleading guilty. He represented himself.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissing Eldrige’s claims. Eldrige did not object after being notified of his right to do so.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. found no clear error, adopted the recommendation in full, denied the petition, and dismissed the action. The opinion does not state the recommendation’s specific reasons.
The detailed version
- Eldridge v. The People of the State of New York · No. 1:19-cv-07763-ALC-SLC
- Carter
- Feb. 1, 2023
Background
Mike Eldrige filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2011 conviction for second-degree attempted robbery in New York State Supreme Court, which followed a guilty plea. The opinion states that Eldrige filed the petition without a lawyer. The respondents were the People of the State of New York and the Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility.
Proceedings
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. On February 25, 2022, she issued a report and recommendation recommending dismissal of Eldrige’s claims. Eldrige was notified that he could object but filed no objections.
When no timely objections are filed, the district court may adopt a magistrate judge’s recommendation if the record does not show clear error. Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. stated that he found no clear error and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.
Ruling
The court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and dismissed the action. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, close the case, and mail the order to Eldrige. The opinion does not explain the specific grounds for the recommended dismissal because it adopts the report and recommendation for the reasons stated in that separate document.
Name discrepancy
The caption spells the petitioner’s surname “Eldrige,” while the body of the opinion spells it “Eldridge.” This summary follows the caption form and flags the discrepancy rather than resolving it.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.