On February 7, 2020, the pro se employee filed a notice of appeal indicating he was appealing the trial court’s “Order Denying Employee’s Motion for Recusal.” The notice of appeal stated that the judge was citing “wrongful/codes laws” that do not apply to the issues raised for the purpose of aiding the employer; that the judge was allowing “unskilled doctors” who could not “treat or properly diagnose” the employee; that the judge was “tampering [with] and concealing orders . . . to prevent [the employee]” from obtaining “his rightful relief”; and that the judge “has been automatically disqualified pursuant to Title 28 [U.S.C. section 455(a)].” Neither party timely filed a brief on appeal. Having carefully reviewed and considered the record, and having noted that the employee presented no evidence to the trial court to support his positions and no argument on appeal addressing how the trial court allegedly erred in denying his motion for recusal, we affirm the trial court’s February 7, 2020 order denying the employee’s motion for recusal. We deem the appeal to be frivolous, exercise our discretion not to award attorneys’ fees and expenses, and remand the case.

The Petitioner, Christopher Brown, appeals the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, in which he challenged his convictions for one count of first degree premeditated murder and three counts of aggravated assault and his effective sentence of life imprisonment plus ten years. On appeal, the Petitioner contends that: (1) post-conviction counsel had a conflict of interest that disqualified him from representing the Petitioner at the hearing; (2) trial counsel provided ineffective assistance; and (3) post-conviction counsel was ineffective at the post-conviction hearing. Upon reviewing the record and the applicable law, we conclude that the Petitioner is entitled to a new hearing based upon post-conviction counsel’s conflict of interest.

A jury convicted the Defendant, Nathan G. Fleming, of two counts of aggravated robbery, two counts of attempted first degree murder, four counts of employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, two counts of carjacking, and two counts of especially aggravated robbery. The trial court merged various convictions and imposed an effective sentence of sixty-eight years. On appeal, the Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions and the trial court’s imposition of partial consecutive sentences. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.

The petitioner, Eddie H. Pittman, appeals the summary dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus, which petition challenged his 2015 Madison County Circuit Court jury conviction of reckless aggravated assault. Discerning no error, we affirm.

The Petitioner appeals the summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he challenged his convictions for especially aggravated robbery and facilitation of first degree murder. After a review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas corpus court.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. In July 2006, a drive-by shooting took place in Ypsilanti, Michigan, during which two people inside a trailer were killed. Four individuals, including Joshua Joseph Tackett, were charged with murder in connection with the killings. Tackett was tried before a Michigan state-court jury and was found guilty on two counts of first- degree murder and on two counts of possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the first-degree murder convictions.

After going through various state-court proceedings and being denied relief at each stage, Tackett filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. He raised a number of claims, including, most notably, that the evidence in his case was insufficient to support his first-degree murder convictions. The district court denied Tackett’s petition. On appeal, five claims are before us, including the sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. An Ohio jury convicted James Smith of crimes arising from twelve armed robberies that occurred over a six-month period. After exhausting his remedies in state court, Smith filed a habeas petition in federal district court. The district court rejected Smith’s claims but granted a certificate of appealability on three issues. Having reviewed Smith’s claims, we AFFIRM.

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. The rule of law applies in multidistrict litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 just as it does in any individual case. Nothing in § 1407 provides any reason to conclude otherwise. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has made clear, every case in an MDL (other than cases for which there is a consolidated complaint) retains its individual character. That means an MDL court’s determination of the parties’ rights in an individual case must be based on the same legal rules that apply in other cases, as applied to the record in that case alone. Within the limits of those rules, of course, an MDL court has broad discretion to create efficiencies and avoid duplication—of both effort and expenditure—across cases within the MDL. What an MDL court may not do, however, is distort or disregard the rules of law applicable to each of those cases.

The rules at issue here are the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which have the same force of law that any statute does. The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, on grounds that, in three instances, the district court has either disregarded or acted in flat contradiction to those Rules. We grant the writ.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. These two appeals arise from challenges filed by individual plaintiffs and the Michigan Republican Party to Michigan’s new Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. The Commission was established by ballot initiative in the 2018 Michigan general election. The first lawsuit was filed by Michigan citizens who allege that they are unconstitutionally excluded from serving on the Commission due to its eligibility criteria, which prohibit eight classes of individuals with certain current or past political ties from serving as a commissioner. The second lawsuit was filed by the Michigan Republican Party and individual plaintiffs, making the same allegation as the first lawsuit and raising other First Amendment allegations regarding the Commission’s selection process, its composition, and its restrictions on the commissioners’ ability to speak publicly about redistricting matters.

The plaintiffs in both cases moved for preliminary injunctions against the implementation of the Commission. The district court denied these motions, and the plaintiffs have appealed. For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

The plaintiff sued the administrator of the estate of his deceased business partner seeking a declaratory judgment over ownership of reel-to-reel tape recordings. The plaintiff claimed joint ownership of the tapes with the decedent. The estate administrator moved to dismiss on res judicata grounds, arguing that a federal court had previously determined that the decedent was the sole owner of the tapes. After a combined motion hearing and bench trial, the circuit court initially granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff then moved to alter or amend the judgment, and the court set aside its original ruling and granted the requested declaratory relief. We agree that res judicata does not apply. So we affirm.