Scott v. Luoma

Full title: CLARENCE SCOTT, Petitioner, v. TIMOTHY LUOMA, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division

Date published: Jun 20, 2008

Case No. 2:05-CV-138 (W.D. Mich. Jun. 20, 2008)

Opinion

Case No. 2:05-CV-138.

June 20, 2008

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

GORDON QUIST, District Judge

The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation filed by the United States Magistrate Judge in this action on May 15, 2008. The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties on May 15, 2008. No objections have been filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

Accordingly, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation as the Opinion of this Court.

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 stated above, 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 the Magistrate Judge, filed May 15, 2008, is approved and adopted as the Opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's habeas corpus petition is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED by this Court.

This case is concluded.