Spearman v. Birkett

Full title: RUFUS SPEARMAN, Petitioner, v. THOMAS BIRKETT, Respondent

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

Date published: Mar 31, 2006

Civil Case No. 05-40006 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 31, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 05-40006.

March 31, 2006

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

PAUL GADOLA, District Judge

Before the Court is Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on January 10, 2005, and the Report and Recommendation of the Honorable Paul J. Komives, United States Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge recommends that this Court deny Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus. The Magistrate Judge served the Report and Recommendation on all parties on March 7, 2006, and notified the parties that any objections must be filed within ten days of service. Accordingly, any objections should have been filed by approximately March 27, 2006. Neither party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

The Court's standard of review for a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation depends upon whether a party files objections. If a party does not object to the Report and Recommendation, the Court does not need to conduct a review by any standard. See Lardie v. Birkett, 221 F. Supp. 2d 806, 807 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (Gadola, J.). As the Supreme Court observed, "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Since neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a review.

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [docket entry 23] is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus [docket entry 2] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.