Kuzma 219288 v. Campbell

W.D. Michigan

Kuzma 219288 v. Campbell

DecidedMarch 29, 2021

Docket1:15-cv-01130

StatusUnknown

This text of Kuzma 219288 v. Campbell (Kuzma 219288 v. Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kuzma 219288 v. Campbell, (W.D. Mich. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL W. KUZMA,

Petitioner, Case No. 1:15-cv-1130 v. Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou SHERMAN CAMPBELL,

Respondent. ____________________________/

ORDER

This is a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on December 7, 2020, recommending that this Court deny the petition (ECF No. 37). The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. Petitioner sought an extension of time to file objections on December 21, 2020, to which the Court granted (ECF No. 39). Petitioner sought a second extension of time to file objections on February 12, 2021, to which the Court again granted (ECF No. 41), making objections due March 21, 2021. No objections have been filed, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Court issues this Order. The Court will also issue a Judgment in this § 2254 proceeding. See Gillis v. United States, 729 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2013) (requiring a separate judgment in habeas proceedings). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 37) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court and the petition for habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 1) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED as to each issue asserted. See RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES, Rule 11 (requiring the district court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order”). Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the Court’s rulings debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 466-

67 (6th Cir. 2001).

Dated: March 29, 2021 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou HALA Y. JARBOU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL W. KUZMA,

Petitioner, Case No. 1:15-cv-1130 v. Hon. Hala Y. Jarbou SHERMAN CAMPBELL,

Respondent. ____________________________/

ORDER

This is a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation on December 7, 2020, recommending that this Court deny the petition (ECF No. 37). The Report and Recommendation was duly served on the parties. Petitioner sought an extension of time to file objections on December 21, 2020, to which the Court granted (ECF No. 39). Petitioner sought a second extension of time to file objections on February 12, 2021, to which the Court again granted (ECF No. 41), making objections due March 21, 2021. No objections have been filed, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and the Court issues this Order. The Court will also issue a Judgment in this § 2254 proceeding. See Gillis v. United States, 729 F.3d 641, 643 (6th Cir. 2013) (requiring a separate judgment in habeas proceedings). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 37) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court and the petition for habeas corpus relief (ECF No. 1) is DENIED for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) is DENIED as to each issue asserted. See RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES, Rule 11 (requiring the district court to “issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order”). Petitioner has not demonstrated that reasonable jurists would find the Court’s rulings debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000); Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466, 466-

67 (6th Cir. 2001).

Dated: March 29, 2021 /s/ Hala Y. Jarbou HALA Y. JARBOU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kuzma 219288 v. Campbell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kuzma-219288-v-campbell-miwd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack