Markham v. Janssen

Filing 42

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. (See order for details) (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright. (RJE)

CASE 0:19-cv-03110-WMW-BRT Doc. 42 Filed 02/18/21 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Oji Konata Markham,

Case No. 19-cv-3110 (WMW/BRT)
Petitioner,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
Vicki Janssen,
Respondent.

This matter is before the Court on the October 28, 2020 Report and
Recommendation and December 11, 2020 Report and Recommendation (collectively,
R&Rs) of United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. (Dkts. 28, 34.) The R&Rs
recommend that this Court (1) deny Petitioner Oji Konata Markham’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus, (2) deny Markham’s motion for an evidentiary hearing, (3) deny
Markham’s motion to expedite and compel judgment and for release pending this Court’s
decision, (4) deny Markham’s “COVID-19 Motion for Release,” and (5) not issue a
certificate of appealability.
A district court reviews de novo those portions of an R&R to which an objection is
made and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); accord Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(3); LR 72.2(b)(3). When a party fails to file specific objections to an R&R,
de novo review is not required. See Montgomery v. Compass Airlines, LLC, 98 F. Supp.
3d 1012, 1017 (D. Minn. 2015) (observing that objections to an R&R that “are not

CASE 0:19-cv-03110-WMW-BRT Doc. 42 Filed 02/18/21 Page 2 of 3

specific but merely repeat arguments presented to and considered by a magistrate judge
are not entitled to de novo review, but rather are reviewed for clear error”). A district
court reviews for clear error any aspect of an R&R to which no specific objection is made.
See Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note to 1983 amendment (“When no timely objection
is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.”). Because Markham is pro se, his
objections are entitled to liberal construction. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Here, timely objections were not filed. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed
Markham’s untimely objections to the October 28, 2020 R&R. Markham’s objections do
not identify any error of law or fact that warrant rejecting the recommendations in the
R&Rs. Moreover, having carefully reviewed the R&Rs, the Court finds that they are
neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Based on the R&Rs, the foregoing analysis, and all the files, records and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1.

The October 28, 2020 R&R, (Dkt. 28), is ADOPTED.

2.

The December 11, 2020 R&R, (Dkt. 34), is ADOPTED.

3.

Petitioner Oji Konata Markham’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, (Dkt. 1), is DENIED.1

1

Because Markham’s petition is denied, the Court need not rule on Markham’s
pending objection, (Dkt. 20), to the magistrate judge’s order denying Markham’s motion
to expand the record. See Rule 7(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts.

2

CASE 0:19-cv-03110-WMW-BRT Doc. 42 Filed 02/18/21 Page 3 of 3

4.

Petitioner Oji Konata Markham’s request for an evidentiary hearing,

(Dkt. 24), is DENIED.
5.

Petitioner Oji Konata Markham’s motion to expedite, to compel judgment

pursuant to Rule 12(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., and for release pending the Court’s decision
(Dkt. 26), is DENIED.
6.

Petitioner Oji Konata Markham’s “COVID-19 Motion for Release,”

(Dkt. 27), is DENIED.
7.

A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: February 18, 2021

s/Wilhelmina M. Wright
Wilhelmina M. Wright
United States District Judge

3