Markham v. Janssen

Background

The court considered two reports and recommendations issued by United States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson. Those recommendations advised the court to deny Oji Konata Markham’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a federal procedure for challenging state custody; deny his request for an evidentiary hearing; deny his motion to expedite, compel judgment, and obtain release while the court considered his case; deny his COVID-19 motion for release; and decline to issue a certificate of appealability.

Review of the Recommendations

The court explained that specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation receive fresh review of the challenged issues. Issues without specific objections are reviewed for clear error, meaning an obvious mistake. Because Markham was representing himself, the court read his objections liberally. Although timely objections were not filed, the court reviewed Markham’s untimely objections to the October 28, 2020 recommendation. The court found that the objections did not identify an error of law or fact warranting rejection of the recommendations. After reviewing both recommendations, the court found them neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Rulings

The court adopted the October 28, 2020 and December 11, 2020 reports and recommendations. It denied Markham’s § 2254 petition, his request for an evidentiary hearing, his motion to expedite, compel judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), and obtain release pending the court’s decision, and his COVID-19 motion for release. The court also ordered that a certificate of appealability would not issue. Because the petition was denied, the court stated that it did not need to rule on Markham’s pending objection to the magistrate judge’s order denying his motion to expand the record. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright directed that judgment be entered accordingly.