1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

SHANNON LOCKRIDGE, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

CINDI S. CURTIN, 

Respondent, 

_____________________________/ 

CASE NO. 09-10145 

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE ARTHUR J. TARNOW

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL J. KOMIVES

ORDER DENYING OBJECTION [42], ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [41], DENYING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS [1, 27], AND DENYING PETITIONER A 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 

I. Introduction 

Pro se Petitioner Shannon Lockridge filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 

Corpus [1] on April 13, 2009. Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Komives’ 

Report and Recommendation [41] entered on April 8, 2013. The Report and 

Recommendation [41] recommends that this Court deny Petitioner’s application 

for the writ of habeas corpus and deny Petitioner a certificate of appealability. 

Petitioner filed Objections [42] to the Report and Recommendation [41] on April 

19, 2013. 

2:09-cv-10145-AJT-PJK Doc # 43 Filed 09/11/14 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 521
2

For the reasons stated below, the Court adopts the Report and 

Recommendation [41], denies Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1, 

27], and denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability. 

II. Procedural Background 

Petitioner Shannon Lockridge is a state prisoner currently confined at the 

Oaks Correctional Facility in Manistee, Michigan. On March 15, 2007, Petitioner 

pled guilty and was convicted of a charge of criminal enterprise, MCL § 

750.159i(1), in the Muskegon County Circuit Court. On July 16, 2007, he was 

sentenced as a fourth degree habitual offender to a term of 15-30 years 

imprisonment. At the time of his conviction, Petitioner was on parole for an 

unrelated offense. His parole was revoked as a result of his conviction. 

Following his conviction, petitioner filed a voluntary request to withdraw his 

appeal. The trial court entered a stipulated order ending the appeal and permitting 

counsel to withdraw on December 27, 2007. 

On January 13, 2009, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

[1] in this Court. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss [6] for lack of exhaustion 

on May 6, 2009. Petitioner responded with a Motion to Hold Habeas Petition in 

Abeyance [10]. On December 28, 2009, this Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s 

Report and Recommendation [11] granting Petitioner’s Motion to Hold Habeas 

2:09-cv-10145-AJT-PJK Doc # 43 Filed 09/11/14 Pg 2 of 7 Pg ID 522
3

Petition in Abeyance [10] and denying Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [6] as 

moot. 

On May 14, 2010, the Muskegon County Circuit Court denied Petitioner’s 

Motion for Relief from Judgment. The Michigan Court of Appeals denied 

Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment, and the Michigan Supreme Court 

denied Petitioner’s applications for leave to appeal. 

On September 22, 2011, Petitioner again filed a renewed Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus [27] before this Court. This petition was filed under case number 

11-14151. On February 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge granted Respondent’s 

Motion to Consolidate Cases [15]. 

Respondent filed its Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [36] 

on April 24, 2012. Petitioner filed a Reply to Respondent’s Opposition [39] on 

June 5, 2012. 

The Report and Recommendation [41] issued on April 8, 2013 now before 

this Court recommends that the Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus as to all of Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner filed an Objection to the 

Report and Recommendation [42] on April 19, 2013. 

2:09-cv-10145-AJT-PJK Doc # 43 Filed 09/11/14 Pg 3 of 7 Pg ID 523
4

III. Plea and Appeal Proceedings 

 The Report and Recommendation [41] contains a detailed explanation of the 

plea and appeal proceedings that make up the background of this case, and the 

Court adopts this background as set out in the Report and Recommendation [41], 

with the following exception: Plaintiff did not state during the plea hearing that he 

had cashed the fraudulent checks using stolen identification. 

IV. Standard of Review 

 This Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 

report or the specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). This Court “may accept, reject or 

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

Magistrate.” Id. 

The Report and Recommendation [41] contains a detailed recital of the 

substantive standards for granting habeas relief pursuant to the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), and the Court adopts this standard 

as set out in the Report and Recommendation [41] in full. 

2:09-cv-10145-AJT-PJK Doc # 43 Filed 09/11/14 Pg 4 of 7 Pg ID 524
5

V. Analysis 

 Petitioner’s first Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] and the second 

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [27] originally filed with case number 11-

14151 raise a combined thirteen claims. This Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s 

findings as to all of Petitioner’s thirteen claims. 

Petitioner’s Objection to the Report and Recommendation [42] raises one 

further argument which this Court now denies. 

Petitioner contends that on January 26, 2009, Magistrate Judge Whalen 

examined Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] and found it to be 

meritorious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court finds only two items filed on 

this date. The first is an Order Amending Caption [2] and the second is an Order 

Requiring Responsive Pleading [3]. The Order Requiring Responsive Pleading [3] 

states that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] has been examined and is not 

subject to summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 

Cases. As the heading of Rule 4 indicates, the rule pertains only to “preliminary 

review [and] serving of the petition and order.” Therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s 

preliminary review does not weigh on this Court’s final determination, and 

Petitioner’s objection is denied. 

2:09-cv-10145-AJT-PJK Doc # 43 Filed 09/11/14 Pg 5 of 7 Pg ID 525
6

A. Certificate of Appealability

The Court also adopts the Report and Recommendation’s [41] conclusion 

that a certificate of appealability should not be issued. In the Report and 

Recommendation’s [41] review of each of the Petitioner’s claims, it is 

demonstrated that these claims are not reasonably debatable. 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2) provides that a “certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 

As Petitioner has not shown the merits of his claims sufficient to meet this 

standard, this Court denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability. 

VI. Conclusion 

 For the reasons stated above, the Court adopts the Report and 

Recommendation [41], denies Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1, 

27], and denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability. 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objection [42] is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [41] is 

ADOPTED. 

2:09-cv-10145-AJT-PJK Doc # 43 Filed 09/11/14 Pg 6 of 7 Pg ID 526
7

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus [1, 27] is DENIED. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of 

appealability. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is CLOSED. 

SO ORDERED. 

s/Arthur J. Tarnow 

ARTHUR J. TARNOW

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED: September 11, 2014

2:09-cv-10145-AJT-PJK Doc # 43 Filed 09/11/14 Pg 7 of 7 Pg ID 527