Krabbenhoft v. Dooley et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE, granting 13 Motion to Dismiss; adopting in full as supplemented 15 Report and Recommendation; denying 1 Petitioner's pro se petition for habeas corpus. A certificate of appealability is denied. Signed by U.S. District Judge Karen E. Schreier on 8/15/17. (DJP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
4:16-CV-04149-KES

ROBBIE D. KRABBENHOFT,
Petitioner,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND
DISMISSING CASE

vs.
ROBERT DOOLEY, WARDEN – SDSP;
AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
Respondent.

Petitioner, Robbie D. Krabbenhoft, filed a pro se petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to Magistrate
Judge Veronica L. Duffy for a report and recommendation and she
recommended dismissing the petition. Petitioner then sent a letter to
Magistrate Judge Duffy (Docket 16) that the court construes to be an objection
to the report and recommendation. For the following reasons, the court adopts
Magistrate Judge Duffy’s report as supplemented herein.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The court’s review of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is
governed by 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court reviews de novo any
objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendations with respect to
dispositive matters that are timely made and specific. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
(“The district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s
disposition that has been properly objected to”). In conducting its de novo
1

review, this court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Craft, 30 F.3d 1044, 1045 (8th Cir. 1994).
This court has conducted a de novo review of all of Magistrate Judge Duffy’s
report and recommendation.
DISCUSSION
Krabbenhoft’s letter to Magistrate Judge Duffy does not object to the
contents of the report and recommendation, but instead raises a new
complaint that his attorney, Gina Rogers, did not give him copies of his arrest
warrants, police reports, or the results of the rape kit. (Docket 16). Krabbenhoft
argues that he believes he is entitled to copies of these documents because his
attorney on a previous case—his DUI conviction--told him he was entitled to
receive these documents. Id.
Krabbenhoft did raise this issue during his state habeas proceedings.
After a full hearing, Judge Sommers found that there was conflicting testimony
regarding whether Rogers provided Krabbenhoft with copies of the documents,
but even if copies of the documents were not provided, the issue had no merit.
Docket 10-6. Specifically, the court stated: “This Court is unaware of any
requirement that a defendant be provided a copy of a police report, and further,
that distribution of a police report to a client would normally run afoul of
discovery agreements required by the State.” See id. at 4. Krabbenhoft cites no
federal statute or case law that supports his position and this court is not
aware of any such requirement under federal law.
2

After reviewing the state court transcripts and the written decision of the
state habeas court, this court finds the South Dakota state court made factual
findings that were fairly supported in the record and it did not unreasonably
apply federal law. As a result, this claim for relief is denied. Additionally, the
court has reviewed all of petitioner’s other claims and adopts in full Magistrate
Judge Duffy’s report and recommendation.
CONCLUSION
After a review of Magistrate Judge Duffy’s report and recommendation
and Krabbenhoft’s objection, the court finds no error in the report.
Thus, it is ORDERED
1. The report and recommendation (Docket 15) is adopted in full as
supplemented herein.
2. Petitioner’s pro se petition for habeas corpus (Docket 1) is denied.
3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket 13) is granted.
4. Based upon the reasons stated and under Fed. R. App. P. 22(b), the
court finds that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. ' 2253(c)(2). Thus, a
certificate of appealability is denied.
Dated August 15, 2017.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen E. Schreier
KAREN E. SCHREIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3