Washington #207519 v. Palmer

Filing 67

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 56 ; Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is denied and this case is dismissed; petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SHERMAN WASHINGTON,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 1:14-CV-1009
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
CARMEN D. PALMER,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation in this matter
(ECF No. 56) and Petitioner Washington’s Objection to it (ECF No. 62). Under the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions of a Report and
Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . as a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s recommendation
unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified.” 12 WRIGHT, MILLER & MARCUS,
FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 451 (3d ed. 2014). Specifically, the Rules provide
that:
The district judge 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). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the
Report and Recommendation itself; and Petitioner’s Objection to it. After its review, the Court

finds that Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally
correct.
None of Petitioner’s objections compel a different result.

The Magistrate Judge

recommends denying the habeas petition on the basis that Petitioner has failed to establish that the
state court decisions on the trial court’s evidentiary rulings and Petitioner’s ineffective assistance
of counsel claim were contrary to, or unreasonably applied, clearly established law as articulated
by the Supreme Court. Petitioner’s objections are lengthy, but they contain little by way of specific
objections to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Moreover nothing in Petitioner’s objections compels
a different result than that recommended by the Magistrate. The Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusion that the petition should be denied for the very reasons articulated by the
Magistrate Judge.
CONCLUSION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 56) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:
1.

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and this
case is DISMISSED.

2.

Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473 (2000).

Dated:

December 15, 2017

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2