Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 5, 2023

Carter v. Annucci

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:22-cv-09019
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Carter v. Annucci, Judge Ramos denied Carter’s habeas petition after adopting Magistrate Judge Netburn’s unchallenged recommendation.

Who this affects

The order resolved David E. Carter’s habeas petition against Anthony Annucci and closed the case.

What happened

Carter v. Annucci began when David E. Carter, without a lawyer, filed a petition asking for habeas relief in the Eastern District of New York. The case was later transferred to the Southern District of New York and referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn.

Judge Netburn recommended denying the petition in full and gave the parties 14 days to object. No objection was filed, and Carter did not request more time.

Judge Ramos reviewed the recommendation, found no error, and adopted it. The court denied the petition, directed the clerk to terminate it, and closed the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carter v. Annucci · No. 1:22-cv-09019
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Sept. 5, 2023

Background

David E. Carter, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on May 10, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. A habeas petition asks a court to provide relief from unlawful custody or detention, but this order does not describe the specific claim raised by Carter. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York on October 20, 2022, and referred to Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn on October 24, 2022.

Report and Recommendation

On August 16, 2023, Magistrate Judge Netburn issued a report and recommendation recommending that the petition be denied in its entirety. The report gave the parties 14 days to file written objections. That deadline passed without an objection, and Carter did not request an extension.

Court’s Analysis

Under federal law, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. The judge generally reviews objected-to portions independently and may adopt unobjected-to portions if no clear error appears in the record. Judge Ramos stated that he reviewed Magistrate Judge Netburn’s report and found no error, “clear or otherwise.” The order does not independently discuss the substance of Carter’s habeas claims.

Disposition

The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The clerk was directed to terminate the petition, docketed as Document 1, and close the case. The order does not state that the denial was with or without prejudice.

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.