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.

Jackson v. United States

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Northern Division

May 7, 2018

MICHAEL CASEY JACKSON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

          Patricia T. Morris Magistrate Judge

          ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS, ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, DENYING MOTION TO VACATE SENTENCE, DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AS MOOT, DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING PERMISSION TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

          THOMAS L. LUDINGTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On January 30, 2017, Petitioner Michael Casey Jackson was sentenced to 165 months of incarceration after pleading guilty to one count of unlawful imprisonment. ECF No. 31. On January 10, 2018, Jackson filed a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. ECF No. 32. That motion was referred to Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris. ECF No. 35. On March 14, 2018, Judge Morris issued a report recommending that the motion to vacate be denied. ECF No. 39. On April 2, 2018, Jackson filed a motion for an extension of time to respond to the Government's response brief. ECF No. 40. The next day, before his motion for an extension of time was ruled upon, Jackson filed objections to the report and recommendation. For the following reasons, Jackson's objections will be overruled, the report and recommendation will be adopted, his motion to vacate will be denied, and his motion for an extension will be denied as moot.

         I.

         Jackson does not object to Judge Morris's procedural or factual summary of his case. For that reason, Judge Morris's summary will be adopted and reproduced here:

On June 24, 2016, Petitioner Michael Casey Jackson (“Petitioner” or “Jackson”) pleaded guilty to unlawful imprisonment in violation of 18 U.S.C. §13, 1152; M.C.L. 750.349b pursuant to a Rule 11 plea agreement. (Doc. 19.) A judgment filed on January 30, 2017, sentenced Petitioner to 165 months incarceration and three years of supervised release. (Doc. 31 at ¶ 118-19.) Petitioner did not file an appeal.

Rep. & Rec. at 1, ECF No. 39.

         II.

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may object to and seek review of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Objections must be stated with specificity. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 151 (1985) (citation omitted). If objections are made, “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). De novo review requires at least a review of the evidence before the magistrate judge; the Court may not act solely on the basis of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. See Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981). After reviewing the evidence, the Court is free to accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of the magistrate judge. See Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F.Supp.2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002).

         Only those objections that are specific are entitled to a de novo review under the statute. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). “The parties have the duty to pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specially consider.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented, does not sufficiently identify alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge. See VanDiver v. Martin, 304 F.Supp.2d 934, 937 (E.D. Mich. 2004). An “objection” that does nothing more than disagree with a magistrate judge's determination, “without explaining the source of the error, ” is not considered a valid objection. Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Without specific objections, “[t]he functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrate's Act.” Id.

         III.

         Jackson has raised three objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. Each of the objections closely track with arguments he made in his motion to vacate and which Judge Morris rejected. First, Jackson argues that his federal court conviction should be overturned because the Court lacked jurisdiction. He argues that the address where the offense occurred “is still Public/Private Property because the utilities are all City/County, including all taxes paid for by the owner.” Objs. at 2. For that reason, Jackson believes that the address is outside the bounds of “Indian Country.” Second, Jackson argues that his counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and raise this jurisdictional issue. Third, Jackson requests an evidentiary hearing.

         Because the address where the offense occurred is within Indian Country, Jackson's objections have no merit. In response to Jackson's argument that the address was outside Indian Country because it is owned by an individual non-Indian, Judge Morris reasoned:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1151, Indian Country is defined as “(a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent...” Therefore, even if the land has been patented by the United States to a person such that neither the United States nor the tribe owns the parcel of land, as long as the land is located within reservations boundaries, it meets the definition of Indian Country and jurisdiction in ...

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.