Conerly #250811 v. Berghuis
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 41 ; Petitioner's petition and certificate of appealability are DENIED; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 1:13-CV-617
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, Lavell Conerly, filed a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On
December 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Ray Kent issued a Report and Recommendation (R & R),
finding that Conerly’s arguments are meritless or not cognizable and, accordingly, recommended
that the petition be denied. (ECF No. 41.) Conerly filed an objection on January 2, 2018. (ECF
No. 42.) Conerly states that he “wish[es] to preserve all the presented issues but” only wanted to
address his Miranda argument in the objection. (Id. at PageID.755.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 72(b), a petitioner “may serve and file specific written objections” to the R & R,
and the Court is to consider any proper objection. Local Rule 72.3(b) likewise requires that written
objections “shall specifically identify the portions” of the R & R to which a petitioner objects.
Conerly’s broad statement that he “wish[es] to preserve all the presented issues” is not specific
enough for purposes of these rules, and any objection beyond his Miranda objections are therefore
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), upon receiving objections to a report and recommendation,
the district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” After conducting a de novo
review of the R & R, Conerly’s Objections, and the pertinent portions of the record, the Court
concludes that the R & R should be adopted.
The Michigan Court of Appeals rejected Conerly’s Miranda argument because the
statement was not made in response to a custodial interrogation, and the record did not indicate
that the detective was trying to elicit an incriminating response or that he was trying to question
Conerly. People v. Conerly, No. 301804, 2012 WL 205831, *4–5 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan 24, 2012).
The R & R agreed and the magistrate judge found that the Miranda argument was meritless.
Conley fails to show otherwise in his objection. The Court will therefore adopt the R & R.
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 Conerly has demonstrated a
“substantial showing of the 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, 120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this Court has
examined each of Conerly’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.” The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not
find that this Court’s dismissal of Conerly claims was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the Court
will deny Conerly a certificate of appealability.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
issued December11, 2017, (ECF No. 41) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the Opinion of this
Court, and Petitioner’s Objection, filed January 2, 2018, (ECF No. 42) is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
Dated: March 12, 2018
/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?