Anes #540573 v. Campbell

Filing 19

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 ; the habeas petition 1 is denied and this case is dismissed; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, ymc) Modified text on 7/21/2017 (cep).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DANNON ANES,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 1:16-CV-233
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
SHERMAN CAMPBELL,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Kent’s Report and Recommendation in this matter
(ECF No. 17) and Petitioner Anes’s Objection to it (ECF No. 18). 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.
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the habeas petition on the basis that Petitioner
has failed to establish that the state court decisions on his claims of prosecutorial misconduct,
ineffective assistance of counsel, juror bias, and exclusion of certain testimony were contrary to,
or unreasonably applied, clearly established law as articulated by the Supreme Court. The Court
finds the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation to be well-reasoned and thorough, and
accordingly adopts its conclusion.
PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS
Petitioner raises two objections, both of which lack merit. First, Petitioner claims the
Magistrate Judge failed to apply the correct standard of review to his claim that the trial court erred
when it excluded certain testimony (ECF No. 18, PageID.1844). Specifically, Petitioner argues the
Magistrate Judge should have reviewed the trial court’s exclusion of evidence under the standard
set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Id. He is incorrect. The Court finds that the
Magistrate Judge applied the correct standard of review mandated by AEDPA, and correctly found
that Plaintiff’s claims do not warrant relief under the applicable law.
Second, Petitioner reiterates and expands arguments made in his habeas petition regarding
alleged juror bias. The Report and Recommendation already carefully, thoroughly, and accurately
addresses these arguments. Nothing in Petitioner’s objection changes the fundamental analysis. The
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that Petitioner is not entitled to relief on that
ground, for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation delineates.
CONCLUSION
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 17) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the habeas petition (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and this
case is DISMISSED.

Dated:

July 21, 2017

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

3