Caraway v. Litteral

Filing 23

ORDER: 1. Defendant Jeremy D. Caraway's Objections [R. 21 ] are OVERRULED; 2. Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins Report and Recommendation [R. 17 ] as to Defendant Jeremy D. Caraway is ADOPTED and for the Opinion of the Court; 3. Defenda nt Jeremy D. Caraway's Petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to § 2254 [R. 1 ] is DENIED; 4. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED as to all issues raised by the Defendant; and 5. JUDGMENT in favor of the Respondent will be ent ered contemporaneously herewith. for 18 Letter, 17 Report and Recommendations, 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Jeremy D. Caraway Signed by Judge Gregory F. VanTatenhove on 07/10/2019.(KJA)cc: COR, pro se filer via US Mail

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
LONDON
KATHY LITTERAL, Warden,
Plaintiff/Respondent,
V.
JEREMY D. CARAWAY,
Defendant/Petitioner.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No.: 6:18-cv-00173-GFVT-EBA

ORDER

*** *** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on a Recommended Disposition filed by United States
Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins. [R. 17.] Defendant Jeremy D. Caraway filed a pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [R. 1.] Consistent with local
practice, Judge Atkins reviewed the motion and prepared a Recommended Disposition. [R. 17.]
Mr. Caraway filed a Response to Judge Atkins Recommendation stating his objections. [R. 21.]
After considering the record, Judge Atkins determined that Mr. Caraway is not entitled to
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Specifically, Judge Atkins found that Mr. Caraway could not
establish that his counsel’s actions fell below professional standards, and therefore, his claims for
ineffective assistance of counsel are without merit. [R. 17.] Furthermore, Judge Atkins found
that Mr. Caraway’s argument that his counsel should have argued for a change of venue was
never properly presented before the Kentucky state courts, and therefore could not be considered
in this federal habeas proceeding. [R. 17 at 12; see Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 87
(1977).]
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), a petitioner has fourteen days after

service to register any objections to the Recommended Disposition or else waive his rights to
appeal. In order to receive de novo review by this Court, any objection to the recommended
disposition must be specific. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986). A specific
objection must “explain and cite specific portions of the report which [defendant] deem[s]
problematic.” Robert v. Tesson, 507 F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotations and
citations omitted). A general objection that fails to identify specific factual or legal issues from
the recommendation, however, is not permitted, since it duplicates the Magistrate’s efforts and
wastes judicial economy. Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th
Cir. 1991). Mr. Caraway’s objections, even under the less stringent standard applied to
pleadings made by pro se litigants, are not sufficiently specific to trigger de novo review. See
Pilgram v. Littlefield, 92 F.3d 413, 416 (6th Cir. 1996); Jourdan v. Jabe, 951 F.2d 108, 110 (6th
Cir. 1991). Rather than identifying those specific factual or legal issues, he reiterates the same
arguments he presented in his initial petition. [Compare R. 1 with R. 21.] Even so, the Court has
reviewed Judge Atkin’s Recommendations and agrees with his conclusions. Furthermore, the
Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. The Court determines that reasonable jurists
would not find the denial of Mr. Caraway’s § 2254 motion debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
Accordingly, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED
as follows:
1.

Defendant Jeremy D. Caraway’s Objections [R. 21] are OVERRULED;

2.

Magistrate Judge Edward B. Atkins Report and Recommendation [R. 17] as to

Defendant Jeremy D. Caraway is ADOPTED and for the Opinion of the Court;
3.

Defendant Jeremy D. Caraway’s Petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to §

2

2254 [R. 1] is DENIED;
4.

A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED as to all issues raised by the

Defendant; and
5.

JUDGMENT in favor of the Respondent will be entered contemporaneously

herewith.
This the 10th day of July, 2019.

3