Blanks v. Romanowski

Filing 21

ORDER Adopting 17 Report and Recommendation denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, granting 18 Motion to Extend filed by Marque Blanks and Declining a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by District Judge Stephen J Murphy, III. (AGre)

Download PDF
Blanks v. Romanowski Doc. 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MARQUE BLANKS, # 322404, Case No. 08-cv-12800 Petitioner, HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III v. KENNETH ROMANOWSKI, Respondent. / ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (docket no. 17), GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS (docket no. 18), OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS This is a habeas case. A state jury found pro se petitioner Marque Blanks guilty of first degree premeditated murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Blanks raises eight issues in his petition. Respondent contends that the petition is time-barred and that many of the claims are procedurally defaulted. The Court referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives for all pretrial proceedings. The matter returns to the Court on the Report and Recommendation of Judge Komives. In his report, Judge Komives recommends that the Court deny the petition on the merits, rather than take up the limitations and procedural default defenses. He also recommends that the Court deny a certificate of appealability on any issue raised in the petition. Blanks filed objections to the report.1 During the 14-day period for objecting to the report and recommendation, Blanks filed a motion seeking an extension of time to file his objections. The Court grants his motion and accepts his objections as timely filed. 1 A district court's standard of review for a magistrate judge's report and recommendation depends upon whether a party files objections. With respect to portions of a report that no party objects to, the Court need not undertake any review at all. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). On the other hand, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a district court "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1) ("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."). Overly broad objections, however, do not satisfy the objection requirement. See Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006). "The objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and contentious." Id. Objections that merely dispute the correctness of the magistrate judge's recommended outcome but fail to specify the findings believed to be erroneous are too general to invoke the statutorily mandated de novo review. Id. Blanks filed specific objections, so the Court reviews de novo the report and the record. After such review, the Court concludes that the analysis in the report and recommendation is correct. The Court agrees that Blanks has not demonstrated an entitlement to habeas relief on any of the claims he asserts in the petition. Blanks's objections do not persuade the Court otherwise. The Court also agrees that Blanks is not entitled to a certificate of appealability on any issue raised in the petition because the resolution of his claims is not debatable. 2 The Court overrules Blanks's objections, and adopts the analysis in the report as the Court's own. WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file objections (docket no. 18) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's objections are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (docket no. 17) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability on any issue. SO ORDERED. s/Stephen J. Murphy, III STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge Dated: November 29, 2010 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on November 29, 2010, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. Alissa Greer Case Manager 3

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?