Sturgis #400782 v. Curtin

Filing 26

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 20 , and denying petitioner's petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. A certificate of appealability is denied ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

M IC H A E L STURGIS, P e t i t io n e r , v. C I N D I CURTIN, R e sp o n d e n t. _________________________/ C A S E NO. 1:07-CV-177 H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL

O R D E R APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION T h is matter is before the Court on a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner Michael Sturgis. On January 11, 2010, Magistrate Judge Ellen S. C a rm o d y issued a report and recommendation (R&R) recommending that the petition be d e n ie d . (Dkt. No. 20.) On February 11, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of tim e to file objections to the R&R to March 15, 2010. (Dkt. No. 25.) No objections have b e e n filed. The Court has reviewed the R&R and concludes that it correctly analyzes the is s u e s and makes a sound recommendation. A district court may issue a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). In Slack v . McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), the Supreme Court determined that the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is whether "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment

o f the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Id. at 484. The Sixth Circuit has d is a p p ro v e d of the issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. O h io , 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the Court must "engage in a reasoned

a s s e s s m e n t of each claim" to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. at 467. Each is s u e must be considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack. Id. U p o n review, the Court has determined that Petitioner cannot make the showing required u n d er Slack as to any of his claims for relief. Accordingly, I T IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R (Dkt. No. 20) is APPROVED and A D O P T E D as the opinion of the Court. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. N o . 1) is DENIED. I T IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

Dated: March 30, 2010

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2