Buchanan #313838 v. Hoffner

Filing 17

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 10 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMAL UMAR BUCHANAN,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 1:16-CV-258
v.
HON. ROBERT J. JONKER
BONITA HOFFNER,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTIONG
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 10) and Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (ECF Nos. 13, 16). 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 . . . has 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 381
(2d ed. 1997). Specifically, the Rules provide that:
The district judge to whom the case is assigned shall make a de novo
determination upon the record, or after additional evidence, of any
portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific written
objection has been made in accordance with this rule. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision,
receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.
FED R. CIV. P. 72(b). 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 objections. The Court finds the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10) is factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas petition. In his Objections,
Petitioner primarily reiterates and expands arguments raised in his original Petition. Nothing in
Petitioner’s Objections changes the fundamental analysis. Petitioner fails to deal with his
admissions at the guilty plea hearing and the reality that he eventually received an appeal and merits
decision on the first issue he raises. The Court finds that dismissal is appropriate, for the very
reasons the detailed in the Report and Recommendation.
Before Petitioner may appeal the Court’s dismissal of his petition, a certificate of
appealability must issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B); FED. R. APP. P. 22(b)(1). The Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure extend to district judges the authority to issue certificates of appealability.
FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); see also Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900, 901–02 (6th Cir. 2002). Thus
the Court must either issue a certificate of appealability indicating which issues satisfy the required
showing or provide reasons why such a certificate should not issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3); FED.
R. APP. P. 22(b)(1); In re Certificates of Appealability, 106 F.3d 1306, 1307 (6th Cir. 1997).
A certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make the required “substantial
showing,” the petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
338 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). The Court does not believe that

2

reasonable jurists would find the Court’s assessment of the claim Petitioner raised debatable or
wrong.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 10) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF
No. 1) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability is
DENIED.

Date:

August 1, 2017

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

3