Ross #470131 v. Davis
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 20 ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
TERRELL VASHON, ROSS
Case No. 2:09-cv-75
HON. R. ALLAN EDGAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Terrell Vashon Ross, a Michigan state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On
July 12, 2011, Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley submitted his report and recommendation.
[Doc. No. 20]. It is recommended that the habeas petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice,
and that a certificate of appealablity be denied under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
Petitioner Ross has not timely filed any objections to the report and recommendation. After
reviewing the record, the Court ACCEPTS and ADOPTS the report and recommendation pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). The Court concludes that the habeas
petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is without merit. The habeas petition shall be DENIED
and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
If petitioner Ross files a notice of appeal, it will be treated as an application for a certificate
of appealability which shall be DENIED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. App. P.
22(b)(1); and Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), for the same reasons expressed in the
report and recommendation. Petitioner Ross has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
federal constitutional right. Reasonable jurists could not find that dismissal of the habeas petition
is debatable or erroneous.
The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 24(a) that any
appeal from the decision and judgment in this case would be frivolous and not taken in good faith.
A separate judgment will enter.
Dated: August 5, 2011.
R. Allan Edgar
R. ALLAN EDGAR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?