Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sturgis v. Curtin

March 30, 2010

MICHAEL STURGIS, PETITIONER,
v.
CINDI CURTIN, RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Robert Holmes Bell

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner Michael Sturgis. On January 11, 2010, Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody issued a report and recommendation (R&R) recommending that the petition be denied. (Dkt. No. 20.) On February 11, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file objections to the R&R to March 15, 2010. (Dkt. No. 25.) No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the R&R and concludes that it correctly analyzes the issues and makes a sound recommendation.

A district court may issue a certificate of appealability "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). In Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), the Supreme Court determined that the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is whether "reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Id. at 484. The Sixth Circuit has disapproved of the issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the 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. Id. Upon review, the Court has determined that Petitioner cannot make the showing required under Slack as to any of his claims for relief.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R&R (Dkt. No. 20) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. No. 1) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.

ROBERT HOLMES BELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20100330

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.