The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Glenn T. Suddaby, United States District Judge
Tad McKinney ("Petitioner") brought this Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. No. 1.) By Report-Recommendation dated January 29, 2008, the Honorable David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the Petition be denied and dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability not issue. (Dkt. No. 24 [Rep.-Rec.].) Petitioner timely filed Objections to the Report-Recommendation after being given leave for an extension on May 30, 2008. (Dkt. No. 29 [Obj. to Rep.-Rec.].) For the reasons set forth below, the Court accepts and adopts the Report-Recommendation, and dismisses Petitioner's Petition.
When specific objections are made to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation, the Court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).*fn1
When only general objections are made to a magistrate judge's report-recommendation (or the objecting party merely repeats the allegations of his pleading), the Court reviews for clear error or manifest injustice. See Brown v. Peters, 95-CV-1641, 1997 WL 599355, at *2-3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 1997) (Pooler, J.) [collecting cases], aff'd without opinion, 175 F.3d 1007 (2d Cir. 1999).*fn2 Similarly, when a party makes no objection to a portion of a report-recommendation, the Court reviews that portion for clear error or manifest injustice. See Batista v. Walker, 94-CV-2826, 1995 WL 453299, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1995) (Sotomayor, J.) [citations omitted]; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), Advisory Committee Notes: 1983 Addition [citations omitted]. After conducting the appropriate review, the Court may "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)(C).
For the sake of brevity, the Court will not repeat the factual background of Petitioner's conviction in 2001 for burglary, grand larceny and petit larceny, and his subsequent state court appeals, but will simply refer the parties to the relevant portions of Magistrate Judge Peebles's Report-Recommendation, which accurately recite that factual background. (Dkt. No. 24, at 2-16 [Rep.-Rec.].)
In his Petition, Petitioner asserts six claims in support of his request for habeas relief: (1) his statement to police officials was coerced; (2) the prosecution improperly withheld exculpatory material from him; (3) the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support his convictions; (4) his trial counsel was ineffective; (5) his appellate counsel was ineffective; and (6) the sentence imposed was excessive and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. (Dkt. No. 1, at 3 [Addendum 3 to Petition]; see also Dkt. No. 18, at 6-19 [Pages "2" to "15" of Traverse].)
In his Report-Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Peebles' recommends that the Court deny each of these six claims. (Dkt. No. 24, at 21-100 [Rep.-Rec.].)
In his Objections to Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation, Petitioner raises specific objections to only the first five of Magistrate Judge Peebles' six recommendations. (See Dkt. No. 29, Part 1, at 1-36 [Obj. to Rep.-Rec.].) Petitioner makes no objection (or only a general objection) to Magistrate Judge Peebles' sixth recommendation (i.e., that the Court deny Petitioner's claim that his sentence is cruel and unusual, in violation of the Eighth Amendment). (Compare Dkt. No. 24, at 94-100 [Rep.-Rec.] with Dkt. No. 29, Part 1, at 35-36 [Obj. to Rep.-Rec.].)
The Court's analysis begins with recognition of the fact that, because Petitioner makes no objection (or only a general objection) to Magistrate Judge Peebles' sixth recommendation (i.e., that the Court deny Petitioner's claim that his sentence is cruel and unusual, in violation of the Eighth Amendment), the Court reviews that sixth recommendation for clear error or manifest injustice. After carefully reviewing all of the papers in this action, the Court concludes that Magistrate Judge Peebles' sixth recommendation is not subject to attack for plain error or manifest injustice. (See Dkt. No. 24, at 94-100 [Rep.-Rec.].) As a result, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Peebles' recommendation that the Court deny Petitioner's claim that his sentence is cruel and unusual, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court notes that this recommendation would survive even a de novo review.
Turning to the five recommendations of Magistrate Judge Peebles to which Petitioner does make a specific objection, the Court reviews those recommendations de novo. After carefully reviewing all of the papers in this action, including Magistrate Judge Peebles' Report-Recommendation and Plaintiffs' Objections thereto, the Court can find no error in these five recommendations of Magistrate Judge Peebles. (See Dkt. No. 24, at 21-94 [Rep.-Rec.].) Magistrate Judge Peebles employed the proper legal standards, accurately recited the facts, and correctly applied the law to those facts. (Id.) The Court finds that only eight of Petitioner's arguments are worthy of further discussion in this Decision and Order.
Liberally construed, these eight arguments are as follows: (1) that the Report-Recommendation improperly failed to consider Petitioner's Traverse; (2) that the state courts and Magistrate Judge Peebles failed to consider the "totality of the circumstances" surrounding Petitioner's discussion with police investigators; (3) that the state courts and Magistrate Judge Peebles improperly characterized, or failed to recognize, the exculpatory evidence that was withheld from Petitioner; (4) that the jury charge on circumstantial evidence was improper; (5) that there are facts which the state courts and Magistrate Judge Peebles failed to realize, and which support a finding that the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to convict Petitioner; (6) that Magistrate Judge Peebles wrongfully relied on certain case law in recommending that Petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim be dismissed; (7) that Petitioner's claims regarding the ineffective assistance of trial counsel were properly exhausted; and (8) that Petitioner's claims regarding the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel were properly exhausted. (See Dkt. No. 29, Part 1, at 7-11, 15-27, 30, 32-33 [Obj. to Rep.-Rec.].)
A. Petitioner's Argument that the Report-Recommendation Improperly Failed to Consider His Traverse
Petitioner argues that the Report-Recommendation improperly failed to consider his Traverse. (Dkt. No. 29, Part 1, at 7 [Obj. to Rep.-Rec.].) Magistrate Judge Peebles expressly cited Petitioner's Traverse in his Report-Recommendation. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 24, at 17, 22, 32, 36, 38, 44.) In addition, after reviewing the record, the Court finds that Petitioner's Traverse offered only one argument that Magistrate Judge Peebles could be said to have not exhaustively considered: that the prosecution had failed to turn over to Petitioner exculpatory evidence in the form of a police report about Ted Johnson. (Dkt. No. 18, at 13-16 [attaching pages "9" to "12" of Traverse].)*fn3 Of course, Magistrate Judge Peebles could not have reached the merits of this argument because Petitioner failed to provide Magistrate Judge Peebles with a copy of the police report. (Dkt. No. 24, at 41, 42-43 [Report-Recommendation].) In any event, the Court discusses--and rejects--this argument in Part III.C. of this Decision and Order.
For these reasons, the Court rejects Petitioner's argument that the Report-Recommendation improperly ...