West #654119 v. Palmer

Filing 34

FINAL ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 33 ; the petition for habeas corpus relief is denied for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation; a certificate of appealability as to each issue asserted is denied; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION RENDAE DIATEZ WEST, Petitioner, Case No. 1:10-cv-1296 v. HON. JANET T. NEFF CARMEN PALMER, Respondent. _______________________________/ FINAL ORDER This is a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on November 19, 2012, recommending that this Court deny the petition. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. No objections have been filed, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Court issues this Final Order [See RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES, Rule 11 (referring to the order disposing of a habeas petition as a “final order”).] THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt 33) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court and the petition for habeas corpus relief (Dkt 8) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED as to each issue asserted. See RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES, Rule 11 (requiring the district court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order”). Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the Court’s rulings debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 466-67 (6th Cir. 2001). Date: December 13, 2012 /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge Page 2 of 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?