ALEXANDER v. PALMER

Case No. 1:15-CV-1008.

BEINVILLE HAMILTON ALEXANDER, Petitioner, v. CARMEN D. PALMER, Respondent.

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Beinville Hamilton Alexander #203099, petitioner, Pro Se.

Carmen D. Palmer, respondent, represented by Bruce H. Edwards , MI Dept Attorney General & Laura Moody , MI Dept Attorney General.


ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

ROBERT J. JONKER, Chief District Judge.

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Carmody's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11) and Petitioner's Objections to Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13). Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions of a Report and Recommendation, "[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge's recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified." 12 WRIGHT, MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 381 (2d ed. 1997). Specifically, the Rules provide that:

The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the Report and Recommendation itself; and Petitioner's objections. After its review, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief.

The Magistrate Judge recommends denial of Petitioner's habeas petition. In his objections, Petitioner primarily reiterates and expands upon arguments presented in his original brief. Petitioner's objections fail to deal in a persuasive way with the Magistrate Judge's analysis. The Magistrate Judge carefully and thoroughly considered the evidentiary record, the parties' arguments, and the governing law. The Magistrate Judge properly analyzed Petitioner's claims. Nothing in Petitioner's Objections changes the fundamental analysis. The Court concludes that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief, for the very reasons detailed in the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), a petitioner may not appeal in a habeas corpus case unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure extend to district judges the authority to issue certificates of appealability. FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); see also, Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900, 901-02 (6th Cir. 2002) (the district judge "must issue or deny a [certificate of appealability] if an applicant files a notice of appeal pursuant to the explicit requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1)"). However, a certificate of appealability may be issued "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must demonstrate that "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). While Petitioner is not required to establish that "some jurists would grant the petition for habeas corpus," he "must prove `something more than an absence of frivolity' or the existence of mere `good faith.'" Id. (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1983)). In this case, Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, he is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that Petitioner is not entitled to the habeas corpus relief he seeks. Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 11) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED; and 2. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability.

Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases