You're going to have to be more specific. I don't see the correlation in Micah chapter 5 versus Matthew chapter 2, but I don't have access to an interpreted Hebrew Old Testament (nor, for that matter, do I speak or read any variant of Hebrew).
[Edit: My point is, Herod was allegedly told to find the savior in the town of Bethlehem, because of prophecy that instead said that a ruler of Israel (which may or may not refer to the messiah) would be a descendent of Bethlehem. It's not exactly a genuine match. Further, Matthew's record of the prophecy is simply wrong. There was no mention of the phrase "in the land of Juda" in the actual prophecy as depicted in Micah 5:2, but instead the name of the house, Ephratah. The switch from "thousands" to "princes" is almost forgivable; the switch from "ruler" to "governor" I can acccept. Having priests misinterpret prophecy and use that to prove the fulfillment of the prophecy is not the fulfillment of prophecy.]