Opinion
Case No. 6:15-cr-00016-GFVT-EBA
06-28-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. JASON A. KINDER, Defendant/Movant.
ORDER
*** *** *** ***
This matter is before the Court pending review of the Recommended Disposition of United States Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins, filed on June 5, 2017. [R. 27.] Consistent with local practice, Judge Atkins considered the petition for habeas relief filed by Mr. Kinder pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. After considering Mr. Kinder's arguments as well as the applicable case law, Judge Atkins determined Mr. Kinder is not eligible for the relief he seeks. Specifically, Judge Atkins explained that Kinder is not entitled to relief from his career offender status in light of the United States Supreme Court's determination in Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (2017), which held the Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to void for vagueness challenges.
In order to receive de novo review by this Court, any objection to a recommended disposition must be specific. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). A specific objection "explain[s] and cite[s] specific portions of the report which [counsel] deem[s] problematic." Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007). A general objection that fails to identify specific factual or legal issues from the recommendation is not permitted, since it duplicates the magistrate's efforts and wastes judicial economy. Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). When no objections are made, however, this Court is not required to "review . . . a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard . . . ." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Parties who fail to object to a magistrate's recommended disposition are also barred from appealing a district court's order adopting that recommended disposition. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
As of this date, neither Mr. Kinder nor the Government has filed objections to Judge Atkins's Recommended Disposition or sought an extension of time to do so. Although the Court concludes that neither party has filed objections to the Recommended Disposition within the appropriate time period, the Court has still considered the record and ultimately agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. Furthermore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court determines that reasonable jurists would not find the denial of Kinder's § 2255 motion debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Magistrate's Recommended Disposition [R. 27] as to Jason A. Kinder is ADOPTED as and for the Opinion of the Court;
2. Mr. Kinder's § 2255 petition is DENIED;
3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED; and
4. JUDGMENT will be entered contemporaneously herewith and this case will be STRICKEN from the Court's active docket.
This the 28th day of June, 2017.
/s/
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove
United States District Judge