United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, VACATING
PRIOR ORDER AND JUDGMENT; AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS RELIEF
L. Maloney United States District Judge.
Teneyuque filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 17.)
Petitioner requests the Court reconsider the order adopting
the Report and Recommendation.
was convicted by a Michigan court in 2014. The Michigan Court
of Appeals affirmed his conviction and the Michigan Supreme
Court denied leave to appeal in July 2016. Teneyuque filed
his § 2254 petition for habeas relief in July 2017.
February 5, 2019, the magistrate judge issued a report
recommending the petition be denied. Having received no
objections, this Court adopted the report and recommendation
on March 5 and entered judgment. (ECF Nos. 13 and 14.) On
March 6, the clerk filed Teneyuque's objections, which
bore a date stamp of March 1. (ECF No. 15.)
filed a motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 17.) He alleges
he sought an extension of time to file his objections but
mailed the motion to the Michigan Attorney General's
office by mistake. Teneyuque filed, as an attachment, the
prison form showing how the mistake occurred. (ECF No. 17-1
PageID.906.) Motions for reconsideration may be brought under
Local Rule 7.4, which requires the moving party to
demonstrate a palpable defect and also show that a different
disposition must result from the correction.
abundance of caution, the Court will grant Teneyuque's
motion for reconsideration. The evidence establishes that he
diligently litigated this lawsuit. He timely filed a motion
for an extension of time but sent the motion to the wrong
address. Teneyuque also placed his objections in the mail
before this Court adopted the report and recommendation,
although the order adopting the report entered before the
objections reached the Clerk. Under these unique
circumstances, the Court will grant the motion for
reconsideration, will set aside the order adopting the report
and recommendation and the judgment, and will consider his
petition, Teneyuque advances two reasons the Court should
grant him relief. The two arguments are the same arguments he
raised before the Michigan Court of Appeals. Teneyuque
asserted (again) that his conviction was not supported by
sufficient evidence and that the testimony of one of the
witnesses violated his due process rights. The Michigan Court
of Appeals rejected both arguments. The magistrate judge
carefully explained why the same two arguments do not provide
a basis for federal habeas relief.
objections, Teneyuque merely repeats the same arguments
raised on appeal in state court and again in his habeas
petition. Teneyuque does not object to any proposed finding
of fact or any of the legal propositions outlined in the
report and recommendation.
first claim, the magistrate judge explained that direct
evidence was not required for a conviction and then
identified the circumstantial evidence that supported the
jury's verdict. For the second claim, the magistrate
judge noted that the state court of appeals agreed that the
testimony elicited by the prosecutor was in error but did not
deprive Teneyuque of a fair trial. For both claims, the
magistrate judge explained why Teneyuque is not entitled to
federal habeas relief.
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)(3). 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). "[A]n objection that does
nothing more than state a disagreement with the
magistrate's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes
what has been presented before, is not an 'objection'
as that term is used in the context of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 72." Brown v. City of Grand Rapids,
Michigan, No. 16-2433, 2017 WL 4712064, at *2 (6th Cir.
June 16, 2017).
objections are overruled. The Court finds the proposed facts
and conclusions of law in the report and recommendation are
supported by the record. Teneyuque has not addressed the
reasons provided in ...