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.

Goldman v. Barrett

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

May 30, 2018

Lance Adam Goldman, Petitioner,
v.
Joseph Barrett, Respondent.

          OPINION

          Paul L. Maloney, United States District Judge

         On June 5, 2017, Petitioner Lance Adam Goldman filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 seeking relief from a state conviction. (ECF No. 1.) The State of Michigan, through Barrett, filed its response on January 2, 2018. (ECF No. 14.) After receiving the State's response, Goldman filed a slew of motions, briefs, and other documents. (ECF Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24). The Court granted one such motion-to clarify and supplement his claims-and denied his motions for subpoenas, discovery, bond, an evidentiary hearing, and oral argument. (ECF No. 25.) The magistrate judge then issued an R & R on February 5, 2018, recommending that the petition be denied. (ECF No. 26.)

         The matter is now before the Court for de novo review of Goldman's timely objections to the R & R. (ECF No. 27.)

         Findings of Fact

         Goldman's objections rest at the intersection of law and fact. For example, he asserts, “the Magistrate's findings and statements in the Report and Recommendation that I pled guilty to one count of conspiracy . . . is [sic] unfounded.” (ECF No. 27 at PageID.1631.)

         However, he does not really contest that he pleaded guilty; he contests the validity of his plea-a legal challenge. The Court does not find that any of the factual findings in the magistrate judge's R & R are clearly erroneous. Thus, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge's findings of fact and will turn to Goldman's legal objections.

         Legal Framework

         With respect to a dispositive motion, a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, rather than an order. After being served with a report and recommendation (R & R) issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R & R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). 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) (per curiam) (holding the district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous, conclusive or too general because the burden is on the parties to “pinpoint those portions of the magistrate's report that the district court must specifically consider”). Failure to file an objection results in a waiver of the issue and the issue cannot be appealed. United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (upholding the Sixth Circuit's practice). The district court judge 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); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

         Discussion

         Petitioner raises five numbered objections, largely arguing that the magistrate judge did not consider all of his arguments:

I. The magistrate judge failed to consider Goldman's claim that he was unaware he was pleading guilty to a conspiracy charge
II. The magistrate judge failed to consider Goldman's claim that the Michigan crime of False Pretense was unconstitutional
III. The magistrate judge failed to consider Goldman's claim that his right to ...

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.