Brown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NOEL BROWN,

Petitioner, 22 Civ. 6371 (PAE) (HJR)

~ OPINION & ORDER

STATE OF NEW YORK,

Respondent.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

On July 25, 2022, pro se petitioner Noel Brown filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. Dkt. 1. In brief, he seeks to vacate his New York state court conviction for second-

degree criminal possession of a weapon. He argues mainly that: (1) he received ineffective

assistance of counsel; (2) delays in the state court proceedings violated his right to a speedy trial;

(3) his arrest, and the later search of his motorcycle, were unlawful; and (4) the state court’s

removal of a juror during his trial violated his constitutional rights.

On May 8, 2025, the Honorable Henry J. Ricardo, United States Magistrate Judge, issued

a Report and Recommendation with respect to the petition. Dkt. 61 (the “Report”). The Report

recommends that the petition be denied in full. Jd at 1. No party timely objected to the Report.'

Brown thereafter attempted to file multiple appeals of the Report with the Second Circuit, which

were denied. See, e.g., Dkts. 65, 66, 71, 72, 75, 78.

' The Report stated that any party had 14 days to object—i.e., by May 22, 2025. Report at 34.

On June 4, 2026—nearly two weeks after the deadline had passed—Brown filed a letter

regarding the Report. Dkt. 64. It stated that Brown “object[ed] to the entire [Report]” and

attached a two-page, incomplete excerpt of a state court ruling, but did not elaborate further. Jd.

at 1, 4-5.

For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report in full.

DISCUSSION

In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). “To accept those portions of the report to which no timely objection has

been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

record.” Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10 Civ. 5950, 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19,

2014) (quoting King v. Greiner, No. 2 Civ. 5810, 2009 WL 2001439, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. July 8,

2009)); see also Wilds v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 262 F. Supp. 2d 163, 169 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

As no party submitted timely objections to the Report, review for clear error is

appropriate. Careful review of Judge Ricardo’s thorough and well-reasoned Report reveals no

facial error in its conclusions; the Report is therefore adopted in its entirety. The Report

explicitly states that “failure to file objections within 14 days will result in a waiver of objections

and will preclude appellate review.” Report at 34 (cleaned up). The parties’ failure to object

thus waived appellate review. See Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty., 517 F.3d 601, 604 (2d Cir. 2008)

(citing Small v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam)).

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Ricardo’s Report in its

entirety. The Court thus denies Brown’s habeas petition. The Court respectfully directs the

Clerk of Court to mail a copy of this decision to Brown at the address on file; terminate all

pending motions; and close this case.

SO ORDERED.

□□□ A <rqulosy/

PAUL A. ENGELMA YER

United States District Judge

Dated: July 31, 2026

New York, New York