Phillips v. Warden, Ohio Reformatory for Women

Filing 20

ORDER by Judge Michael R. Barrett ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report is ADOPTED in its entirety and Petitioners 18 Objection is OVERRULED. Petitioners 1 Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with PREJUDICE. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability. Petitioner is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. (eh1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Lisa Phillips,
Case No.: 1:10-cv-388
Petitioner,
v.
Judge Michael R. Barrett
Warden, Ohio Reformatory for Women,
Respondent.
OPINION & ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman’s
August 30, 2011, Report and Recommendation (“Report”) (Doc. 14)1 and Petitioner Lisa
Phillips’ corresponding pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (Doc. 1). The Report recommends that Petitioner’s writ be denied with
prejudice. (Doc. 14, 18.)
The parties were given proper notice, pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, including notice that the parties may waive further appeal if
they fail to file objections in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). 2 Petitioner has filed a timely Objection (Doc. 18).
Petitioner’s Objection is ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, the Court
OVERRULES Petitioner’s Objection, and the Report is ADOPTED in its entirety.
I.

Background
Because they are sufficiently detailed in the Report (Doc. 14, 1–5) and in

1

All Court document citations are to Docket Entry numbers.

2

Notice was attached to the Report regarding objections. (Doc. 14, 20.)

1

Respondent’s Answer/Return of Writ (Doc. 11, 2–6), the Court only repeats the most
basic facts here. After being charged with multiple counts of burglary, aggravated
burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, and theft from an elderly person or disabled
adult, Petitioner initially plead not guilty. However, prior to trial, she withdrew that plea
and plead guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated robbery,
one count of burglary, and one count of robbery. She received a total aggregate
sentence of eighteen years. On appeal, the state courts upheld the judgment.
Petitioner commenced the instant habeas corpus action on June 15, 2010.
II.

Legal Analysis
A.

Legal Standard
When objections to a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation are

received on a dispositive matter, the assigned district judge “must determine de novo
any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review, the district judge “may accept, reject, or modify the
recommended decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.” Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (hanging paragraph).
General objections are insufficient to preserve any issues for review; “[a] general
objection to the entirety of the magistrate’s report has the same effects as would a
failure to object.” Neuman v. Rivers, 125 F.3d 315, 323 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Howard
v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)).
B.

Petitioner Makes no Specific Objections
After requesting an extension of time, Petitioner was granted an additional thirty

days in which to file objections to the Report. (Doc. 17, 1; Doc. 19, 1.) Despite this
2

grant of additional time, the entirety of Petitioner’s Objection states as follows:
This is in response to the Court’s Report and
Recommendation regarding the above mentioned case.
Despite the Court’s findings, I can most assuredly affirm
that my guilty plea was not intelligently entered. I was not
fully informed of the subsequent consequences. I only
received a dire warning of a three digit sentence if I did not
plead guilty. In addition, the transcript of proceedings was
given to me missing pages 2–20 as well as my discovery
packet that is missing at least the first page and only
contains a total of 2 pages.
This entire case is riddled with errors and discrepancies
and I call upon the court’s swift attention to providing justice.
(Doc. 18, 1.) These conclusory and unsupported objections are insufficient to preserve
issues for review, especially given that the report thoroughly and completely addresses
the issue of whether Petitioner made her guilty plea voluntarily and intelligently. (Doc.
14, 8–13.).
The Sixth Circuit has stated, “Overly general objections do not satisfy the
objection requirement.” Spencer v. Bouchard, 449 F.3d 721, 725 (6th Cir. 2006) (citing
Miller v. Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995)). “The objections must be clear
enough to enable the district court to discern those issues that are dispositive and
contentious.” Miller, 50 F.3d at 380. “‘[O]bjections disputing the correctness of the
magistrate’s recommendation but failing to specify the findings believed to be in error’
are too general.” Spencer, 449 F.3d at 725 (quoting Miller, 50 F.3d at 380).
Furthermore, “the failure to file specific objections to a magistrate’s report constitutes a
waiver of those objections.” Cowherd v. Million, 380 F.3d 909, 912 (6th Cir. 2004)
(citing Miller, 50 F.3d at 380).
Because the Court cannot see any clear objections to specific issues here, the

3

Court must take Petitioner’s submission as a general objection. See Howard v. Sec’y of
Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 508–09 (6th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, Petitioner’s
objection is OVERRULED.
III.

Conclusion
Having reviewed this matter de novo in accordance with Rule 72 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman’s
Report (Doc. 14) to be thorough, well reasoned, and correct. The Report is ADOPTED
in its entirety, and Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. 18) is OVERRULED. As the Report
recommends (Doc. 14, 18–19), the Court ORDERS as follows:
•

Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED with PREJUDICE.

•

Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability.

•

Petitioner is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Michael R. Barrett
United States District Judge

4