Opinion
Case No. 07-12509.
January 26, 2010
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Komives's Report and Recommendation [dkt 13], in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court deny Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation [dkt 16], and the Court reviews the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation de novo.
Petitioner's objections criticize Judge Komives's reliance on evidentiary rulings by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which Petitioner maintains were incorrect. While Petitioner insists that the Michigan Court of Appeals misread state evidentiary law, such a challenge is inappropriate in this forum, as Judge Komives correctly ruled. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 (1991) ("It is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions."); Ege v. Yukins, 485 F.3d 364, 375 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Bugh v. Mitchell, 329 F.3d 496, 512 (6th Cir. 2003)) ("Habeas relief [is] warranted only if an evidentiary ruling is `so egregious that it results in a denial of fundamental fairness.'").
Judge Komives alternatively reasoned that counsels' decision not to impeach a witness with possibly inculpatory letters was a strategic decision entitled to great deference. Thus, Judge Komives held that counsels' performance was not constitutionally deficient even if the letters were admissible evidence. Petitioner does not address this facet of the Report and Recommendation in his objections.
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the court file, the Report and Recommendation, and Petitioner's objections. As a result of that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and enters it as the findings and conclusions of this Court.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus [dkt 1] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.