Source: http://mi.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180316_0000340.WMI.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:40:08+00:00

Document:
Petitioner takes no issue with the facts as summarized by the magistrate judge. Because he lodges objections only to legal conclusions, the Court adopts the magistrate judge's summary of the facts contained in the R & R.
With respect to a dispositive motion, a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, rather than an order. After being served with an R & R issued by a magistrate judge, a party has fourteen days to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A district court judge reviews de novo the portions of the R&R to which objections have been filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
Petitioner's objections have simply not given the Court anything to consider. Petitioner argues forcefully that the Court must construe his objections with all liberality, but there is nothing to construe. His only substantive critique of the R & R is found on Page 2 of his initial objections. (ECF No. 29 at PageID.11658.) There, Petitioner indicates that he agrees with the magistrate judge that “the totality of the record exposes a great deal of prosecutorial misconduct.” (ECF No. 29 at PageID.11658.) But Petitioner has not made any other cognizable objections for review.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS Judge Carmody's well-reasoned and all-encompassing R & R as the Opinion of the Court.
Therefore, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED.
A district court must issue a certificate of appealability either at the time the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied or upon the filing of a notice of appeal. Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900, 903 (6th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). A court may issue a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003). To satisfy this standard, the petitioner must show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.'” Id. (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000)). Courts should undertake an individualized determination of each claim presented by the petitioner when considering whether to issue a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 551 F.3d 485, 492 (6th Cir. 2009).

References: § 636
 § 636
 v. 
 § 2253
 v. 
 v. 
 v.