ORDER ACCEPTING & ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SEAN F. COX, District Judge.
Currently before the Court is Petitioner Michael Anthony Clark's ("Petitioner") Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. # 627), Amended Motion to Vacate (Doc. # 655), Second Amended Motion to Vacate (Doc. # 659 at 2-11), Supplemental Motion to Vacate (Doc. # 663), Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. # 649), Motions for Discovery and Inspection (Doc. # 650, 672, and 681), Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. # 658), and Motions for Liberal Construction of Pleading (Doc. # 659 at 1, 674). Petitioner's motions have subsequently been referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K. Majzoub. (Doc. # 630, 654, 657, 661, 664, 675, and 682) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B).
On February 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), wherein she recommended that Petitioner's Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Doc. # 627), Amended Motion to Vacate (Doc. # 655), Second Amended Motion to Vacate (Doc. # 659 at 2-11), Supplemental Motion to Vacate (Doc. # 663), Motion for Evidentiary Hearing (Doc. # 649), and Motions for Discovery and Inspection (Doc. # 650, 672, and 681) be
Petitioner was permitted to file late objections to the Magistrate Judge's R&R, (Doc. # 688), which he did on May 5, 2017. (Doc. # 690, Pet.'s Objs.). The Government has not responded to Petitioner's objections and the time to do so has passed. The Court finds Petitioner's objections to be improper and without merit. Therefore, the Court shall
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), a party objecting to the recommended disposition of a matter by a Magistrate Judge must file objections to the R&R within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections must "(A) specify the part of the order, proposed findings, recommendations, or report to which a person objects; and (B) state the basis for the objection." E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d).
Objections are not "a second opportunity to present the argument already considered by the Magistrate Judge." Betancourt v. Ace Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico, 313 F.Supp.2d 32, 34 (D.P.R. 2004). Moreover, the district court should not consider arguments that have not first been presented to the magistrate judge. See Stonecrest Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton Roads, 770 F.Supp.2d 778, 785 (E.D.N.C. 2011).
"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).
The Court notes that Petitioner's objections are difficult to discern and that they are not numbered in any logical order. Keeping that in mind, the Court will do its best to sort and address Petitioner's objections.
Petitioner's first objection relates to his motions for discovery and inspection. In his objection, Petitioner provides reasons for the requests. This objection is improper because Petitioner never presented these reasons to the Magistrate Judge. The Court will not consider arguments that were not previously made before, and considered by, the Magistrate Judge. Petitioner's first objection is overruled.
Petitioner's next objection relates to his underlying § 2255 motions. Petitioner argues that his § 2255 claims require an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner makes no mention of the Magistrate Judge's R&R. Nor does Petitioner point to any specific deficiency in Magistrate Judge Majzoub's reasoning as to this issue. As such, this objection is overruled.
In his third objection, Petitioner appears to reassert arguments made in his underlying § 2255 motions. Specifically, Petitioner argues that he was entitled to a Franks hearing with regard to wiretap and search warrant affidavits. (Pet.'s Objs. at p. 3). Magistrate Judge Mazjoub has already rejected this argument, noting that:
(R&R at pp. 9-10). To the extent that Petitioner objects to the R&R, he fails to point to any specific deficiency in the Magistrate Judge's reasoning. Moreover, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Mazjoub's resolution of this issue. Petitioner's objection is overruled.
Petitioner's next objection is titled "Claim No. 6 Felon In Possession of Firearms Issue." (Pet.'s Objs. at p. 3). Petitioner appears to be arguing that his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to provide the court with documentation that would have led to the dismissal of Petitioner's felon-in-possession charges. Petitioner concludes that the documents submitted by him to support his ineffective assistance claim were all he had access to at the time. (Id. at p. 4).
Petitioner's objection is conclusory and fails to point to any specific deficiency in the Magistrate Judge's R&R. Morever, Magistrate Judge Mazjoub has already addressed this argument and the Court agrees with her analysis:
(R&R at pp. 11-12). To the extent that Petitioner argues now that the documents provided to the Magistrate Judge in support of his § 2255 were all that he had at the time, this does not save Petitioner's claim. Petitioner's fourth objection is overruled.
Petitioner's fifth objection is titled "Ineffective Assistance Claim regarding Counsel's Failure to Challenge the Warrant Affidavit for Search at 7559 Prairie street and Livernois Avenue in Detroit." (Pet.'s Objs. at p. 4). This objection is without merit. As Magistrate Judge Mazjoub correctly notes, Petitioner's trial attorneys filed two motions to suppress evidence obtained through the search warrants executed at 8843 Livernois Avenue and 7559 Prairie Street in Detroit. (R&R at p. 7). Petitioner fails to acknowledge these motions and he makes no argument that the motions were deficient. As such, this objection is overruled.
In his next objection, Petitioner "contends that the motions were deficient in nature and that counsel's performance was deficient by his filing of a suppression motion before motions to challenge the warrant Affidavit first." (Pet.'s Objs. at p. 4). This objection is improper and without merit. Again, Petitioner fails to point to any deficiency in the Magistrate Judge's R&R. As such, this objection is overruled. Moreover, to the extent Petitioner's objection relates to the motions to suppress evidence obtained through search warrants, Petitioner's argument is misplaced. The motions to suppress filed by Petitioner's trial attorney necessarily attack the sufficiency of the affidavits.
Next, Petitioner argues that his trial attorney "never argued that Petitioner's right to Speedy Trial had been violated." (Pet.'s Objs. at p. 5). Petitioner appears to take issue with the Magistrate Judge's statement that attorneys are not required to raise non-meritorious claims. Petitioner argues that his right to speedy trial is a constitutional right and can "never" be viewed as non-meritorious. Petitioner's argument in this regard is misplaced and conclusory. Petitioner does not explain, for example, how the speedy trial argument would have been meritorious. As such, Petitioner cannot establish that he was prejudiced by his trial attorney's alleged failure to make it. Petitioner's objection is overruled.
Petitioner next objection relates to the sufficiency of the wiretap warrant affidavit. (Pl.'s Objs. at p. 5). Petitioner states that his trial attorney should have attacked the affidavit for the warrant for wiretaps prior to a suppression motion. Again, this argument was already rejected by the Magistrate Judge. (See R&R at pp. 9-10). The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's reasoning. This objection is overruled.
Petitioner's next objection relates to evidence regarding a tractor trailer. (Pet.'s Objs. at p. 5). Petitioner claims his trial attorney was ineffective for failing to challenge the evidence because the tractor trailer was not in Petitioner's possession. This objection is improper and is without merit. Magistrate Judge Majzoub was aware that the tractor trailer was not in Petitioner's possession, which is why she correctly noted that Petitioner failed to establish that he has standing to challenge the search and had therefore failed to demonstrate that his trial attorney erred in failing to file a suppression motion. As such, this objection is overruled.
Next, Petitioner argues that he asked for information regarding Attorney S. Allen Early. (Pet.'s Objs. at p. 6). Petitioner's objection is vague, conclusory and fails to reference the R&R in any concrete manner. The Court overrules this objection.
Petitioner's next objection similarly fails to reference any deficiency in the R&R's reasoning. As such, this objection is overruled.
In his last objection, Petitioner argues that his attorneys were ineffective for failing to challenge the Government's use of false and misleading statements before the Grand Jury and at sentencing. Petitioner's argument fails for the reasons stated in the R&R: Petitioner does not specifically identify the alleged false and misleading statements and therefore has provided no basis on which the Court may analyze this claim. (R&R at p. 13). As such, this objection is overruled.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall