From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stone v. Curtin

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Nov 3, 2006
Case No. 1:06-cv-595 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 1:06-cv-595.

November 3, 2006


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION


On September 21, 2006, United States Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") recommending that Rubin Lamont Stone's petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. Petitioner has not filed any objections to the R R. The court, having reviewed the R R filed by the United States Magistrate Judge in this action as well as the amended petition and its attachments, agrees with the recommended disposition contained in the R R.

"[A] state court's failure to observe the 120-day rule of IAD Article IV(c) is not cognizable under § 2254 when the defendant registered no objection to the trial date at the time it was set, and suffered no prejudice attributable to the delayed commencement." Reed v. Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 352, 114 S.Ct. 2291, 2299 (1994). Stone, like the petitioner in Reed, does not suggest that his ability to present a defense was prejudiced by any delay. Any alleged violation did not affect or damage Stone's ability to get a fair trial, nor does it appear that it caused a possibility that an innocent man was convicted and imprisoned. His claim is therefore not cognizable under § 2254.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.


Summaries of

Stone v. Curtin

United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Nov 3, 2006
Case No. 1:06-cv-595 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2006)
Case details for

Stone v. Curtin

Case Details

Full title:RUBIN LAMONT STONE, Petitioner, v. CINDI CURTIN, Respondent

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

Date published: Nov 3, 2006

Citations

Case No. 1:06-cv-595 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2006)