Opinion
Case No. 2:16-CV-157
10-14-2016
WILLIAM HARRIS, Petitioner, v. DUNCAN MACLAREN, Respondent.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation by the United States Magistrate Judge in this action (ECF No. 6), which was served on Petitioner on September 20, 2016. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court must also determine whether a certificate of appealability should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a "substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The Sixth Circuit has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 467 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district court must "engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim" to determine whether a certificate is warranted. Id. at 467. Each issue must be considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme Court in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S. Ct. 1595 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this Court has examined Petitioner's claims under the Slack standard.
Under Slack, 529 U.S. at 484, 120 S. Ct. at 1604, to warrant a grant of the certificate, "[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." For the reasons set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that reasonable jurists could not find that this Court's dismissal of Petitioner's claim was debatable or wrong. Thus, the Court will deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Greeley (ECF No. 6), filed September 20, 2016, is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's habeas corpus petition is DENIED because it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
This case is concluded. Dated: October 14, 2016
/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE