Rogers v. Romanowski
Filing
15
ORDER Adopting RE: 14 Report and Recommendation and Denying Petitioner's Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by District Judge Marianne O Battani. (BThe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DEVIN ROGERS, Petitioner, v. Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives MICHAEL CURLEY, Respondent. ____________________________/ ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Devin Rogers filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction and sentence. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") dated July 30, 2009, Magistrate Judge Komives recommended that Rogers' Petition be denied because the "state courts' resolution of [his] claims did not result in a decision that was contrary to, or which involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law." R&R at 18. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a party seeking review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is required to act within ten days of service of the R&R. A party's failure to file objections waives any further right of appeal. Neither party filed an objection. Because no objection has been filed in this case, the parties waived their right to de novo review and appeal. Case No. 07-10778 Hon. Marianne O. Battani
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and DENIES the Petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus. IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Marianne O. Battani MARIANNE O. BATTANI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATE: September 1, 2009
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies of this Order were mailed and/or e-filed to Petitioner and counsel of record on this date. sBernadette M. Thebolt Deputy Clerk
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?