Stroud v. Squires
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-05765
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Stroud v. Squires: Judge Broderick adopted the magistrate judge’s report and denied Stroud’s habeas petition and request for a stay.
Nysia Stroud’s federal habeas petition and request for a stay were denied; Respondent Susan Squires was the opposing party.
What happened
In Stroud v. Squires, Nysia Stroud, representing herself, asked the federal court to review her state-court custody through a habeas petition. She also asked the court to pause the case until her state proceedings were completed.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing the petition and denying the request for a stay. No one objected to that recommendation. The court noted that mail sent to Stroud was returned and that she had not provided a forwarding address, but the court gave her additional time to respond.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick reviewed the recommendation for clear error, found none, and adopted it in full. The court denied Stroud’s habeas petition and separately denied her request for a stay.
The detailed version
- Stroud v. Squires · No. 1:22-cv-05765
- Vernon Broderick
- May 23, 2023
Background
Nysia Stroud, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking for federal habeas relief. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in the petition. Stroud also requested a stay until her state proceedings were completed.
Report and Recommendation
The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein. He issued a report and recommendation on March 28, 2023, recommending that Stroud’s petition be dismissed and that her request for a stay be denied.
The parties did not object to the report. The Clerk of Court reported that the mailing containing the report had been returned as undeliverable, and that no forwarding address had been provided. The Clerk mailed the report again to a different address. Judge Broderick waited an additional 25 days, and no party objected or requested more time. The opinion states that it was Stroud’s responsibility to provide the court with a usable address.
Court’s Review and Ruling
When no party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the district court reviews it for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. Judge Broderick reviewed Judge Gorenstein’s report, found no clear error, and adopted it in its entirety.
The court denied Stroud’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and separately denied Stroud’s request for a stay. The opinion does not decide the underlying legal issues raised in the petition; it adopts the recommendation after review for clear error.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.