United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
L. Maloney, United States District Judge
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.)
matter is now before the Court for de novo review of
Goldman's timely objections to the R & R. (ECF No.
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.)
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.
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).
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
II. The magistrate judge failed to consider Goldman's
claim that the Michigan crime of False Pretense was
III. The magistrate judge failed to consider Goldman's
claim that his right to ...