Young v. Harris
Filing
21
Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, the Court overrules Petitioner's Objections, Doc #: 20 , and adopts in full Magistrate Judge Burke's Report and Recommendation, Doc #: 18 . The above-captioned case is hereby dismissed as final. Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 9/5/2019. (K,K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
GEORGE R. YOUNG,
Petitioner
v.
WARDEN CHAE HARRIS,
Respondent.
) Case No. 1:18-cv-01398
)
) Judge Dan Aaron Polster
)
) OPINION AND ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
This case is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) of Magistrate
Judge Kathleen B. Burke, Doc #: 18. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss
Petitioner George Young’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody, Doc. #: 1. On August 29, 2019, Young timely filed Objections to Judge Burke’s R
& R. Doc #: 2. The Court has carefully reviewed the R & R and Young’s Objections, and hereby
OVERRULES Young’s Objections and ADOPTS the R & R in full.
Young is currently incarcerated at Warren Correctional Institution, having been found
guilty of rape and kidnapping. State of Ohio v. Young, Case No. 573242-13-CR (Cuyahoga
County). Young filed his habeas corpus petition on June 20, 2018, asserting five grounds for relief:
GROUND ONE: The trial court erred when it failed to dismiss the indictment due
to pre-indictment delay, resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States, or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at trial.
Has been exhausted.
GROUND TWO: The trial court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment as
having been time-barred by the six year statute of limitations in violation of his due
process rights, resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
United States Supreme Court, or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
state court proceeding. This issue has been exhausted, ripe for review. Citing State
v. Tolliver, 146 Ohio App.3d 186 (2001). No. 78786.
GROUND THREE: The trial court erred in failing to dismiss the indictment as
having been time-barred by the twenty year statute of limitations, (1) resulted in a
decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court, or (2)
resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts
in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. This issue has been
exhausted ripe for review Sub. S.B. No. 15.
GROUND FOUR: The trial court erred by allowing the state to amend the
indictment by adding petitioner’s name after the expiration of the statute of
limitations had expired, and thereby denying petitioner his right to presentation to
the grand jury, resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States, or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
state court proceeding. This issue has been exhausted and is ripe for review. State
v. Headly (1983).
GROUND FIVE: The trial court erred in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss
for lack of speedy trial, (1) resulted in a decision contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
United States Supreme Court, or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
state court proceeding. This issue has been exhausted and is ripe for review. See
pro se motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial attached.
Doc. 1, pp 3-4.
The Court has reviewed the record carefully and agrees with Magistrate Judge Burke’s
conclusion that each ground should be denied because Young failed to show any act in any ground
that is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented at state court. To the
extent that Grounds Three, Four, and Five seek a review of the state court’s interpretation of state
law, the grounds are dismissed as not cognizable on federal habeas review.
2
In his Objections, Young re-states the arguments he has previously made in his Petition
and Traverse. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review of
those portions of the R & R to which an objection has been made.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
However, an Objection to an R & R is not meant to be simply a vehicle to rehash arguments set
forth in the petition, and the Court is under no obligation to review de novo objections that are
merely an attempt to have the district court reexamine the same arguments set forth in the petition
and briefs. Roberts v. Warden, Toledo Correctional Inst., No. 1:08-CV-00113, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 70683, at *22, 2010 WL 2794246, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 14, 2010) (citation omitted); see
Sackall v. Heckler, 104 F.R.D. 401, 402 (D.R.I. 1984) (“These rules serve a clear and sensible
purpose: if the magistrate system is to be effective, and if profligate wasting of judicial resources
is to be avoided, the district court should be spared the chore of traversing ground already plowed
by the magistrate . . . .”); O’Brien v. Colvin, No. CIV.A. 12-6690, 2014 WL 4632222, at *3, 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129179, at *7–8 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 16, 2014) (collecting cases); Howard v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (“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.”). The Court need not afford de novo review to objections which merely rehash arguments
presented to and considered by the magistrate judge. Because Young’s objections are simple
recitations of his previous arguments, the Court finds Young’s Objections not well-taken.
3
Accordingly, the Court OVERULES Petitioner’s Objections, Doc #: 20, and ADOPTS
IN FULL Magistrate Judge Burke’s Report and Recommendation, Doc #: 18. The abovecaptioned case is hereby DISMISSED AS FINAL.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Dan Aaron Polster 9/5/2019
___________________________________
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge
4
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?