Erdman #156702 v. Metrish

Filing 19

OPINION ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN N O R T H E R N DIVISION L Y N N W. ERDMAN, P e titio n e r, v. LINDA M. METRISH, R e sp o n d e n t. _________________________________/ O P I N IO N ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION T h is is a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. The matter was ref erred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), rec o m m en d in g that this Court deny the petition (docket #17). The matter presently is before the Court on Petitioner's objections to the R&R (docket #18). T h i s Court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which specific objections are m a d e . 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court may accept, reject or modify a n y or all of the Magistrate Judge's findings or recommendations. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1). In his habeas application, Petitioner raised a single claim: he was deprived of due p ro c e ss by the imposition of an excessive sentence based on untrue material that resulted in in c o rre c t sentence scoring under the statutory sentencing guidelines. The Magistrate Judge th o r o u g h ly discussed the issue and recommended that the petition be denied on the merits. In his objections, Petitioner fails to address any portion of the R&R, much less to identify F I L E NO. 2:06-CV-225 H O N . ROBERT HOLMES BELL s p e c if ic errors in the R&R. He therefore has waived his objections. See Miller v. Currie, 50 F .3 d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) ("[A] general objection to a magistrate's report, which fails to s p e c if y the issues of contention, does not satisfy the requirement that an objection be filed. T h e objections must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that a r e dispositive and contentious.") H a v in g reviewed the analysis of the R&R and finding no error, the Court hereby d e n ies Petitioner's objections and adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate J u d g e as the opinion of the Court. Under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2), the Court also must determine whether a certificate of a p p e ala b ility should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a "s u b sta n tial showing of a denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2). The Sixth C irc u it Court of Appeals has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of a p p e a la b ility. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court must "e n g a g e in a reasoned assessment of each claim" to determine whether a certificate is w a rra n te d under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 4 7 3 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this Court has examined Petitioner's c la im under the Slack standard. Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, to warrant a grant of the certificate, "[t]he petitioner m u s t demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the c o n s titu t io n a l claims debatable or wrong." Id. "A petitioner satisfies this standard by 2 d e m o n s tra tin g that . . . jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve e n c o u r a g e m e n t to proceed further." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). In a p p lyin g this standard, the court may not conduct a full merits review, but must limit its e x a m in a tio n to a threshold inquiry into the underlying merit of petitioner's claim. Id. The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not conclude that this Court's dismissal o f Petitioner's claim was debatable or wrong. Therefore, the Court will deny Petitioner a c e rtif ic a te of appealability. A judgment consistent with this opinion shall be entered. Dated: June 18, 2009 /s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

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?