Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 1, 2023

Arnold v. Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:21-cv-10423
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Tarrek Arnold v. Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility, Judge Schofield denied Arnold’s habeas petition after finding no clear error in the recommended denial.

Who this affects

Tarrek Arnold’s federal custody challenge was denied, and the case was closed. The respondent was the Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility.

What happened

Tarrek Arnold filed a petition challenging his custody under a federal law that allows state prisoners to seek habeas relief. A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition in full.

Arnold represented himself. He did not file a timely objection to the recommendation, although the court had granted his request for more time to object.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield found no clear error in the record, adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and denied the petition. She directed the clerk to close the case and mail Arnold a copy of the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Arnold v. Superintendent of Upstate Correctional Facility · No. 1:21-cv-10423
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Feb. 1, 2023

Background

On December 7, 2021, Tarrek Arnold filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure through which a state prisoner may challenge custody. The opinion states that Arnold filed the petition without a lawyer.

Procedural History

The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. On September 24, 2022, Judge Aaron issued a report and recommendation advising that the petition be denied in its entirety. The deadline for objections was fourteen days after service. Arnold later filed a letter motion seeking an extension, which the court granted, but no timely objection was filed.

Ruling

When no timely objection is filed to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court reviews the record for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. The court found no clear error, adopted the report and recommendation, and denied the petition. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail a copy of the order to Arnold.

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.