Scott v. LaRose - 1:13CV648

Filing 17

Order: Following review of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, I adopt the recommendations set forth. Scott's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is denied. The failure to file specific objections to a magistrate judge's report also waives appellate review. I also decline to issue a certificate of appealability. re 13 Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 3/26/2015. (S,AL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Randy L. Scott,

Case No. 1:13-cv-00648
Petitioner

v.

ORDER

Warden LaRose,
Respondent
Before me is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James R. Knepp
recommending denial of Petitioner Randy Lamont Scott’s action seeking a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 13). Under the relevant statute, “[w]ithin fourteen days
after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed
findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); United States v.
Campbell, 261 F.3d 628 (6th Cir. 2001). The failure to file written objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s report and recommendation constitutes a waiver of a determination by the district court of
an issue covered in the report. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also United States v. Walters, 638
F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The purpose of these written objections is “to provide the district court
‘with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any errors
immediately’” while “focus[ing] attention on those issues – factual and legal – that are at the heart of
the parties’ dispute.” Kelly v. Withrow, 25 F.3d 363, 365 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting Walters, 638 F.2d at
950, and Arn, 474 U.S. at 147). After receiving an extension of time, Scott filed his “response to the
report and recommendation.” (Doc. No. 16).

A petitioner must make specific objections to a magistrate’s report in order to preserve his
claims for appellate review. Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.
1987). These objections “must be clear enough to enable the district court to discern those issues
that are dispositive and contentious.” Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995) (citing Howard
v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)).
Scott did not offer specific objections to Magistrate Judge Knepp’s Report and
Recommendation; instead, he merely restates arguments he raised in his Traverse. (Doc. No. 16;
Doc. No. 12). Habeas petitioners who argue the merits of a claim but fail to challenge the
magistrate judge’s recommendation fail to meet the specific objection requirement. See Miller, 50
F.3d at 380 (affirming district court’s conclusion that objections disputing the correctness of the
magistrate judge’s conclusion but failing to specify which findings were erroneous constituted
general objections and consequently a failure to object); Drew v. Tessmer, 36 F. App’x 561, 561 (6th
Cir. 2002) (same). Scott’s filing effectively is a general objection and has the same effect as a failure
to object. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509.
Following review of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, I adopt the
recommendations set forth there. Scott’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2254 is denied. The failure to file specific objections to a magistrate judge’s report also waives
appellate review. Smith, 829 F.2d at 1373. Therefore I also decline to issue a certificate of
appealability.
So Ordered.

s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge