Bulls v. Miller
Filing
24
Memorandum of Opinion and Order Adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (re 22 ). Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge John R. Adams on 2/21/20. (K,C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
DWAYNE M. BULLS,
Petitioner,
v.
MARY POTTER, Warden,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO.:
5:16-cv-02095
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND
ORDER
Pending before this Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R. & R.”)
that Petitioner Dwayne M. Bulls’ (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, be denied. (R. & R. 1, ECF No. 22.) As written in the R. & R., pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Petitioner had fourteen days from receipt of the R. & R. to file objections
to the findings and recommendations contained in the Report and Recommendation. (Id. at 24.)
Petitioner timely filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Obj. to
R. & R., ECF No. 23.) Petitioner’s objection, however, is stated as a request that this Court “make
a denovo [sic] determination on all grounds” and, as a memorandum in support of this request,
Petitioner attached an exact copy of pages nine through nineteen of his Traverse. (See generally
Obj. to R. & R., ECF No. 23. See also Traverse 9-19, ECF No. 16.)
This Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), must engage in a
de novo review of those portions of the R. & R. to which an objection is made. However, Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2) clarifies that the objections to the R. & R. must be specific in order to trigger the
de novo review. In meeting this specificity requirement, “[t]he parties have ‘the duty to pinpoint
those portions of the magistrate’s report that the district court must specially consider.’” Mira v.
Marshall, 806 F.2d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 1986) (quoting Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410
(5th Cir. 1982)). Specific objections, therefore, “direct[] the district judge’s attention to specific
issues decided by the magistrate contrary to [Petitioner’s] position.” Neuman v. Rivers, 125 F.3d
315, 323 (6th Cir. 1997). Cf. Cole v. Yukins, 7 F. App’x 354, 356 (6th Cir. 2001) (“The filing of
vague, general, or conclusory objections does not meet the requirement of specific objections and
is tantamount to a complete failure to object.”).
A general objection to the entirety of the R. & R. does not satisfy the specificity requirement,
and, in fact, has the same effect as a failure to object. See Wurth v. Brown, No. 92-1361, 1992 U.S.
App. LEXIS 27817, at *3 (6th Cir. Oct. 21, 1992) (“A general objection to the entirety of the
magistrate judge’s report has the same effect as would a failure to object”) (citing Howard v. Sec’y
of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)). In addition, an exact recitation of
arguments previously raised also fails to meet the specificity requirement for objections. See
Cannon v. Potter, No. 1:16-cv-1849, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156048, at *6-7 (N.D. Ohio, Sept.
12, 2019) (“a petitioner fails to make a specific objection when the petitioner merely reiterates the
same arguments the petitioner presented to the magistrate judge”); Green v. Andrews, No. 07-cv2093, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47694, at *6 (N.D. Ohio May 14, 2010) (finding petitioner’s
objections “amount to approximately ten pages of text lifted verbatim from [her] Traverse.. . . Such
‘general objections’ do not serve the purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) . . .”).
Because Petitioner in this matter merely provides a general objection to the entirety of the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and attempts to support this general objection
with an exact recitation of arguments that were previously raised before the Magistrate Judge,
Petitioner’s objections do not meet the specificity requirement that triggers this Court’s obligation
to perform a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation. For these reasons, the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety. Petitioner Dwayne M. Bulls’
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is, therefore, DENIED.
Furthermore, this Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 21, 2020
/s/ John R. Adams
Judge John R. Adams
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?