Thompson #533512 v. Lafler
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 21 ; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 1:09-CV-976
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States
Magistrate Judge in this action. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on Petitioner on
April 26, 2012. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).1 Therefore the
Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court must also determine whether a certificate of
appealability should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a
“substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Sixth
Circuit has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio,
263 F.3d 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court must “engage in a reasoned assessment
of each claim” to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. at 467. Each issue must be
considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
The Court notes that the copy of the Report and Recommendation sent to Petitioner was returned to the Clerk
marked “Return to Sender Due to: Out on W rit.” (Dkt. # 22.) A petitioner has a continuing obligation to keep the court
informed of his current address. See Prea v. Battaista, No. 91 Civ. 1171 (TPG), 1993 W L 97423 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30,
1993). Petitioner failed to comply with this obligation.
120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this Court has examined
Petitioner’s claims under the Slack standard.
Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S. Ct. at 1604, to warrant a grant of the certificate, “[t]he
petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”
For the reasons set forth in the Report and
Recommendation, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not find that this Court’s dismissal
of Petitioner’s claim was debatable or wrong. Thus, the Court will deny Petitioner a certificate of
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge, filed April 25, 2012, is approved and adopted as the Opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED by this Court.
This case is concluded.
Dated: May 18, 2012
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?