Belle v. Kelly

Filing 13

Order Adopting Report and Recommendation (re 10 ). Belle's Petition is denied and final judgment is entered in favor of Respondent. The court further certifies, that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 5/5/2015. (D,M)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES BELLE,
Petitioner
v.
BENNIE KELLY, WARDEN,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14 CV 159
JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION
On January 23, 2014, Petitioner James Belle (“Belle” or “Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his felony
convictions for one count of rape, sexual battery, gross sexual imposition, and kidnapping.
(“Petition,” ECF No. 1.) Petitioner raised four grounds for relief in his Petition:
(1) The Trial Court’s Failure to Admit Stipulated Medical Records of the Petitioner
Violated his Due Process Rights.
(2) The Prosecutor’s Inquiry about Defense’s [sic] Witness Knowledge of Alleged Acts
of Sexual Activity Involving the Petitioner and such Evidence Admitted was a 404(B)
Violation.
(3) The Verdicts entered herein was [sic] against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence.
(4) The Verdicts of Rape, Kidnapping, and Gross Sexual Imposition was [sic] Legally
Insufficient as a matter of Law.
(ECF No. 1.)
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge William H. Baughman, Jr. (“Judge Baughman”

or “Magistrate Judge”) for the preparation of a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). The
Respondent filed his Return of Writ on June 2, 2014 (ECF No. 8). Belle did not file a Traverse.
Judge Baughman issued his R&R on April 10, 2015, recommending that the Petition be denied
(ECF No. 10). Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Grounds One, Two, and Three
were non-cognizable state law claims and Petitioner had not demonstrated that he was denied
fundamental fairness, nor had he demonstrated that the trial court’s determination was a violation
of his right to due process. Judge Baughman denied Ground Four because he found that the state
court decision was not objectively unreasonable or contrary to clearly established federal law.
Petitioner filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R on April 24, 2015 (ECF No. 11), and
filed Corrected Objections on April 27, 2015 (“Objections,” ECF No. 12).
In his Objections, Belle stated the following:
(1) The Petitioner objects to the Magistrate’s finding on Ground I that Belle was not denied
fundamental fairness and thus a violation of his Right to Due Process. The Petitioner
attempted to admit Medical records that essentially proved that the presence of semen was
caused by a medical condition. Moreover, the Magistrate never dealt with the issue that the
Petitioner and the State had originally stipulated to the admission of these medical records
which induced counsel not to call the physician who had treated the Petitioner; Clearly these
factual circumstances does rise [sic] to the level of denial of fundamental fairness;
(2) Petitioner likewise objects to the Magistrate’s finding that Ground II should be dismissed
as a no-cognizable [sic] claim. Although the witness responses were “No” to these improper
questions. Given the fact that the Prosecutor asked those questions did not make them
harmless;
(3) Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate’s finding that [sic] Ground III that the verdicts
were against the manifest weight of the evidence was a non-cognizable State Law Claim;
(4) Petitioner also objects to the Magistrate’s finding on Ground IV that the State Court
decision on the Petitioner’s sufficiency of the evidence challenge to his convictions
was not an unreasonable application of Jackson.

-2-

Normally, the court is required to undergo de novo review where a habeas petitioner files
objections to the R&R. However, this rule does not extend where the objections are “general,
conclusory, or frivolous.” Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (holding that “a
district court need not provide de novo review where the objections are frivolous, conclusive, or
general” (internal citations omitted)). Here, Petitioner’s Objections merely reiterate the allegations
found in his Petition; he adds nothing to support his assertions as to the supposed inaccuracy of the
Magistrate Judge’s findings.

The court finds that Petitioner’s Objections are general and

conclusory, and the court is not required to conduct de novo review.
However, after conducting such a review of the R&R and all other relevant documents, the
court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are fully supported by the record and controlling
case law.

Accordingly, the court adopts as its own the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation (ECF No. 10). Belle’s Petition is hereby denied and final judgment is entered
in favor of Respondent. The court further certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), an appeal
from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a
certificate of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

May 5, 2015

-3-