Harris #270223 v. MacLaren

Filing 7

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 6 re 3 : Petitioner's petition and certificate of appealability are DENIED; case closed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM HARRIS,
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:16-CV-157

v.

HON. GORDON J. QUIST

DUNCAN MACLAREN,
Respondent.
/

ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation by the United States Magistrate
Judge in this action (ECF No. 6), which was served on Petitioner on September 20, 2016. No
objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Accordingly, the Court will adopt the
Report and Recommendation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court must also determine whether a certificate of
appealability should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a
“substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Sixth
Circuit has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio,
263 F.3d 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court must “engage in a reasoned assessment
of each claim” to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. at 467. Each issue must be
considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this Court has examined
Petitioner’s claims under the Slack standard.

Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S. Ct. at 1604, to warrant a grant of the certificate, “[t]he
petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”

For the reasons set forth in the Report and

Recommendation, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not find that this Court’s dismissal
of Petitioner’s claim was debatable or wrong. Thus, the Court will deny Petitioner a certificate of
appealability.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Greeley (ECF No. 6), filed September 20, 2016, is approved and adopted as the opinion of
the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is DENIED because
it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
This case is concluded.

Dated: October 14, 2016

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2