DeBerry #159243 v. Haas

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 4 and dismissing habeas petition; signed by District Judge Paul L. Maloney (Judge Paul L. Maloney, cmc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ARNESTUS JOHNNY DEBERRY, #159243,
Petitioner,
-vRANDALL HAAS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:17-cv-53
Honorable Paul L. Maloney

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING
HABEAS PETITION
In 2007, Arnestus Deberry pleaded guilty in the Michigan court system to second
degree home invasion. This Court received his § 2254 habeas petition in January 2017. The
magistrate judge reviewed the petition and issued a report recommending the petition be
dismissed. (ECF No. 4.) The magistrate judge concluded that Deberry’s petition was not
filed within the one-year limitation period. Deberry filed objections. (ECF No. 5.)
After being served with a report and recommendation (R&R) issued by a magistrate
judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court judge
reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. '
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de
novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (per
curiam) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are
frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to Apinpoint those
portions of the magistrate=s report that the district court must specifically consider@).

The Court has reviewed the objections. Deberry has not identified any incorrect
statement of fact or law in the magistrate judge’s report. He does complain that the Court
uses legal phrases that he does not understand. But the reason that his petition must be
dismissed is outlined in the report in plain language. After his conviction became final, he
had one year to ask this Court to review the case brought against him in the state courts. He
did not do so. Beyond the one year, this Court’s authority to review the state court action is
narrow and limited. And Deberry has not identified any facts relevant to his situation that
would allow this Court to now consider his petition, which was filed several years late.
Because Deberry’s habeas petition was filed after the limitations period expired, this
Court lacks the authority to review Deberry’s prosecution in state court.
For these reasons, the report and recommendation (ECF No. 4) is ADOPTED as
the Opinion of this Court. Deberry’s petition for habeas relief is DENIED. This Court also
DENIES a Certificate of Appealability. Deberry has not made a substantial showing the
denial of any constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(2); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 337 (2003). Reasonable jurists would not disagree with this result.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 21, 2017

/s/ Paul L. Maloney
Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge

2