Sefcik v. Sloan
Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation re 10 dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254). Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 8/10/2017. (R,D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
BRIGHAM SLOAN, Warden,
CASE NO. 1:15CV2688
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J:
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Keith Sefcik’s Petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (ECF #1). For
the following reasons, the Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation and dismisses Petitioner’s Petition.
The following is a factual synopsis of Petitioner’s claims. The Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation, adopted and incorporated, provides a more complete and
detailed discussion of the facts.
In its September 2013 term, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted Petitioner
on one count of Felonious Assault, one count of Aggravated Menacing and two counts
of Domestic Violence. Petitioner waived his right to a jury trial and on January 31, 2014,
the trial court found him not guilty on one count of Domestic Violence, but guilty of
Felonious Assault, Aggravated Menacing and the other count of Domestic Violence.
On February 27, 2014, the trial court sentenced Petitioner to five years of imprisonment
for the Felonious Assault conviction and found that the Aggravated Menacing and
Domestic Violence convictions were allied offenses to the Felonious Assault conviction.
Petitioner was also sentenced to five years of Post-Release Control.
On March 24, 2014, Petitioner filed an Appeal to the Eighth District Court of
Appeals. On December 31, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's
judgment. On February 13, 2015, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal in the Ohio
Supreme Court. On July 22, 2015, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept
jurisdiction of Petitioner's Appeal.
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on September 24, 2015, asserting one ground
GROUND ONE: When the undisputed evidence reveals that the crime for
which the defendant was tried did not occur, it violates his constitutional
rights to a fair trial, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and to
Due Process for him to be found guilty and sentenced.
On January 6, 2016, this Court referred Petitioner’s Petition to the Magistrate
Judge for a Report and Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge issued his Report and
Recommendation on July 18, 2017. The Magistrate Judge found that the Court of
Appeals decision for a sufficiency of the evidence analysis is not contrary to or does not
involve an unreasonable application of United States v. Jackson, 55 F.3d 1219, 1225
(6th Cir.1995), and it did not result in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state courts.
On July 31, 2017, Petitioner filed his Objection to Magistrate’s Recommendation,
which read in its entirety as follows:
I ). Petitioner, Keith Sefcik, is a pro-se Iitigant and should not be held to the strict
compliance an [sic] Attorney;
2). That petitioner 's writ of habeas corpus comported with the standards set forth
3). That petitioner 's application for writ of habeas corpus complies with the
guidelines for applying AEDPA limitations.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Under Federal Rule 72(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636, the district court is required to
review de novo any portion of the Magistrate Judge’s Report to which a specific
objection is made. A party who fails to file an objection waives the right to appeal. U.S.
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 950(6th Cir. 1981). In Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150
(1985), the Supreme Court held: “It does not appear that Congress intended to require
district court review of a magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo
or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.” “A party may not
file a general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report.” Ayers v. Bradshaw,
No. 3:07CV2663, 2008 WL 906100, at *1 (N.D. Ohio March 31, 2008)
(citing Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505, 508-09 (6th Cir.
In the instant matter, Petitioner merely states that he is objecting, but provides no
reasons. “For an objection to be sufficiently specific, the petitioner must direct ‘the
district judge’s attention to specific issues decided by the magistrate contrary to [the
petitioner’s] position.’” Ayers, supra at *2 (quoting Neuman v. Rivers, 125 F.3d 315, 323
(6th Cir. 1997)). Petitioner does not provide the Court with specific areas of
A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects
as would a failure to object. The district court’s attention is not focused on any
specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference to the magistrate
useless. The functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the
magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. This duplication of time
and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to
the purposes of the Magistrates Act.
Howard, 932 F.2d at 509.
Petitioner’s submission simply recites his objection; but is the equivalent of an
utter failure to object.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS and ACCEPTS the Magistrate
Judge’s well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, and dismisses Petitioner’s Petition
Under 28 U.S.C. §2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody.
The Court finds an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. 28
U.S.C. § 1915 (a)(3). Since Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial
of a constitutional right directly related to his conviction or custody, the Court declines to
issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c)(2); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: August 10, 2017
s/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?