Lighty v. Christensen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RICHARD LIGHTY
Petitioner,
-against- 	9:24-CV-797 (LEK/MJK)
DAVID CHRISTENSEN
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On June 21, 2024, Petitioner Richard Lighty commenced this action by filing a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus in the Western District of Virginia. Dkt. Nos. 1 (“Petition”), 2.
Thereafter, the Petition was transferred to this Court. Dkt. No. 3.
On June 18, 2025, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New
York submitted a letter motion seeking the Petition be denied as moot. Dkt. No. 24 (“Motion”).
The basis of the Motion was that, inter alia, given “Petitioner has been released,” and that he no
longer “seek[s] . . . further relief,” his Petition “lack[s] . . . an ongoing, concrete injury” for this
Court to rule on. Mot. at 1; see also Dkt. No. 24-1.
On December 23, 2025, the Honorable Mitchell J. Katz, United States Magistrate Judge,
issued an Order & Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule
72.3(d), recommending the Petition be dismissed as moot and that a certificate of appealability
be denied. Dkt. No. 26 (“Report and Recommendation”).
No party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that
follow, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 28 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 4

2
II. 	BACKGROUND
The Court assumes familiarity with the factual and procedural background detailed in the
Report and Recommendation. See R. & R. at 1.
III. 	LEGAL STANDARD
“Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28 United States Code Section
636 govern the review of decisions rendered by Magistrate Judges.” A.V. by Versace, Inc. v.
Gianni Versace, S.p.A., 191 F. Supp. 2d 404, 405 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636;
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Review of decisions rendered by magistrate judges are also governed by the
Local Rules. See L.R. 72.1. 28 U.S.C. § 636 states:
Within fourteen days after being served with a copy [of the Magistrate
Judge’s report and recommendation], any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by
rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of
those 	portions 	of 	the 	report 	or 	specified 	proposed 	findings 	or
recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may
accept, 	reject, 	or 	modify, 	in 	whole 	or 	in 	part, 	the 	findings 	or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also
receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When written objections are filed and the district court conducts a de
novo review, that “de novo determination does not require the Court to conduct a new hearing;
rather, it mandates that the Court give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific
objections have been made.” A.V. by Versace, 191 F. Supp. 2d at 406 (emphasis in original).
“A proper objection must be specific.” Nambiar v. Cent. Orthopedic Grp., LLP, No. 24-
1103, 2025 WL 3007285, at *3 (2d Cir. Oct. 28, 2025). To be ‘specific,’ the objection must, with
particularity, ‘identify [1] the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to
which it has an objection and [2] the basis for the objection.’” Nutt v. New York, No. 12-CV-385,
2012 WL 4006408, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2012) (quoting N.D.N.Y. L.R. 72.1(c)).
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 28 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 4

3
“The district court may adopt those portions of a report and recommendation to which no
timely objections have been made, provided no clear error is apparent from the face of the
record.” DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 339 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). “When a party
makes only conclusory or general objections . . . the Court will review the [report and
recommendation] strictly for clear error.” N.Y.C. Dist. Councils. of Carpenters Pension Fund v.
Forde, 341 F. Supp. 3d 334, 336 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (quoting Molefe v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,
602 F. Supp. 2d 485, 487 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)).
IV. 	DISCUSSION
No party objected to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen days after being
served with a copy of it. Accordingly, the Court reviews the Report and Recommendation for
clear error. See DiPilato, 662 F. Supp. 2d at 339.
After carefully considering Judge Katz’s well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the
Court finds no clear error. Thus, the Court approves and adopts the Report and Recommendation
in its entirety.
V. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that the Report and Recommendation, Dkt. No. 26, is APPROVED and
ADOPTED in its entirety; and it is further,
ORDERED, that the Petition is DISMISSED as moot and the Clerk is directed to enter
judgment and close this case; and it further,
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 28 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	March 3, 2026
Albany, New York
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
United States District Judge
Case 9:24-cv-00797-LEK-MJK Document 28 Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 4