Davis #369621 v. Capello
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RE: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 ; signed by Judge R. Allan Edgar (Judge R. Allan Edgar, cam)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
RICKY ANTONIO DAVIS, JR., #369621,
Case No. 2:10-cv-182
Honorable R. Allan Edgar
GARY J. CAPELLO,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Ricky Antonio Davis, Jr., a Michigan state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, filed a pro se motion for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Petitioner
challenges the trial court’s refusal to allow him to withdraw his no contest plea.
On May 1, 2013, Magistrate Judge Timothy P. Greeley submitted a report and
recommendation. Doc. No. 17. Magistrate Judge Greeley found that the habeas petition
was without merit and that petitioner had not met his burden of showing that he is entitled
to habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. It is recommended that petitioner’s habeas
petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice, and that a certificate of appealability be
denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner has not 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. L.Civ.R.
72.3(b). The entire habeas petition is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
If petitioner files a notice of appeal from the decision and judgment in this case, the
notice of appeal 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). Reasonable jurists could not find that the dismissal
of each of petitioner’s habeas claims was debatable or wrong.
A separate judgment will be entered.
/s/ 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?