Rodvold v. Lazaroff
Filing
21
Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, the Court OVERRULES the Objections (Doc #: 20 ), ADOPTS the R & R in its entirety, (Doc #: 19 ), DISMISSES Grounds One and Three as procedurally defaulted and DENIES the claim asserted in Ground Two on the merits (Doc #: 1 ). Signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster on 2/26/2016. (K,K)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
STEVEN J. RODVOLD,
Petitioner,
vs.
ALAN LAZAROFF,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 3:14 CV 2007
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Report & Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
William H. Baughman, Jr. (“R & R”). (Doc #: 19.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court dismiss in part and deny in part the claims raised in the Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by Petitioner Steven J. Rodvold
(“Petition”). (Doc #: 1.) The Court has reviewed the Petition, the R & R, Petitioner’s
Objections (Doc #: 20) and the record, and is prepared to issue a ruling.
I.
Petitioner Steven Rodvold was convicted by a state court jury of murder with a gun
specification resulting in an aggregate prison sentence of 18 years to life. He now raises three
grounds for relief: ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Ground One), denial of a fair trial
(Ground Two), and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (Ground Three). The Magistrate
Judge has issued a thorough, 38-page R & R recommending that the Court dismiss Grounds One
and Three because they are procedurally defaulted, and deny Ground Two on the merits.1
1
The record shows that Petitioner never filed a traverse, despite the lapse of 10 months
after he filed a notice of expansion of the record. (Doc #: 18.)
Petitioner has filed the following Objections:
This Petitioner read the decision and saw that no attempt to read His Petition was
made! Proof in that it was a poor copy of the prosecuters own! No such
individual as “BENNY” was in this case. “BERNIE” however was. And to state
that NO weapon was found on the Decesied is stateing that All Ohio Inmates
should now be able to purcase Pocket knives now. (Or simmilar) . . . .The Only
Question The Petitioner has strived to answer through the legal prosses is:
“WHAT SHOULD I HAVE DONE”? Not what does the state feel it can exploit.
. . . Every crime has a moral “DON’T DO THIS”! So? Carrying a weapon when
argueing wi Family? or Yelling at but not threating and “scareing” State
employees who were allegidly there to help?
Debt is a great motive too! Unfortanatly for the state the Decesised and The State
itself were the only ones Who were in any kind of position to gain from this
terrible event.
The Petitioner proved beyond any doubt that Councel checked very few sources
and less the ones specificly mentioned by Him in writeing even though They
came forward themselves.
(Doc #: 20.) That’s it.
Aside from the fact that Petitioner’s Objections are nearly incomprehensible, nowhere in
his objections does he point to a specific legal or factual error that the Magistrate Judge made,
other than a spelling error, in the R & R. Rather, he continues to argue his defense to the jury,
which time has long passed.
In Thomas v. Arn, the United States Supreme Court explained that
[t]he Sixth Circuit’s decision to require the filing of objections is supported by
sound considerations of judicial economy. The filing of objections to a
magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention on those
issues–factual and legal–that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute. The Sixth
Circuit’s rule, by precluding appellate review of any issues not contained in
objections, prevents a litigant from “sandbagging” the district judge by failing to
object and then appealing. Absent such a rule, any issue before the magistrate
would be a proper subject for appellate review. This would either force the court
of appeals to consider claims that were never reviewed by the district court, or
force the district court to review every issue in every case, no matter how
thorough the magistrate’s analysis and even if both parties were satisfied with the
magistrate’s report. Either result would be an inefficient use of judicial resources.
-2-
474 U.S. 140, 147-48 (1985). This principle applies squarely to Petitioner’s Objections, which
are simply unresponsive to the R & R.
After a thorough review of the record, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge
accurately summarized the facts and applied the correct legal principles.
II.
Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES the Objections (Doc #: 20), ADOPTS the R & R
in its entirety, (Doc #: 19), DISMISSES Grounds One and Three as procedurally defaulted and
DENIES the claim asserted in Ground Two on the merits (Doc #: 1).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Dan A. Polster February 26, 2016
Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge
-3-
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?