Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01517/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01517-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Raymond Sullivan, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro; et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-1517-PHX-DGC (GEE)

ORDER

Petitioner Sullivan filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel during his state

court trial in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution. Doc. #1 at 4-5, 13-14, 21-32. The petition was referred to United States

Magistrate Judge Glenda Edmonds for report and recommendation ("R&R"). Doc. #2.

Judge Edmonds recommended that the Court deny the petition because Petitioner failed to

show prejudice and because the state court's adjudication of Petitioner's claims was not

unreasonable or contrary to clearly established federal law. Doc. #28 at 10-20 (citing

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)). 

When no party objected to the R&R within ten days, the Court entered an order

accepting it. Doc. #29. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that he had

never received a copy of the R&R and therefore had no opportunity to object. Doc. #31.

The Court granted the motion for reconsideration and established a schedule for briefing.

Doc. #32. Petitioner filed objections to the R&R (Doc. #33) and Respondents filed a

Case 2:04-cv-01517-DGC-GEE Document 36 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

response (Doc. #35). Respondents argue that Petitioner's objections do not comply with

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) because Petitioner merely reformatted his original

petition as an objection and failed to specify how the Magistrate Judge erred in the R&R.

Doc. #35. 

Rule 72(b) provides that "a party may serve and file specific written objections to the

proposed findings and recommendations" of the magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)

(emphasis added). The rule further provides that the district judge "shall make a de novo

determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to which specific

written objection has been made[.]" Id. (emphasis added). The rule requires specificity for

good reason. 

Congress created the position of magistrate judges to assist district courts in

discharging the heavy workload of the federal judiciary. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152

(1985) ("The Act grew out of Congress' desire to give district judges 'additional assistance'

in dealing with a caseload that was increasing far more rapidly that the number of

judgeships." (citation omitted)). Congress expressly authorized district courts to refer

matters to magistrate judges for hearing, report and recommendation, with district courts

conducting de novo review only of "those portions of the [magistrate’s] report . . . to which

objection is made." 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). An obvious purpose of this authorized delegation

was judicial economy – to permit magistrate judges to hear and resolve matters not

objectionable to the parties. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 147-152. This efficiency would be lost if

parties were permitted to invoke the de novo review of the district court merely by

interposing general, non-specific objections to the magistrate's R&R. District judges faced

with such objections would be forced to conduct de novo review of the entire R&R,

duplicating the work of the magistrate judge. Anything less than complete de novo review

could be accomplished only if district courts guessed at which issues are important to the

parties. Because complete de novo review defeats the efficiencies intended by Congress and

guessing at issues is clearly undesirable, circuit courts rightly hold that general objections to

an R&R are tantamount to no objection at all. See Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3rd Cir.

Case 2:04-cv-01517-DGC-GEE Document 36 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

1984) (stating that word-for-word review of magistrate's report due to general objections

would undermine judicial efficiency); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir.

1988) ("Just as a complaint stating only 'I complain' states no claim, an objection stating only

'I object' preserves no issue for review."); Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human

Services, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991) (“A general objection to the entirety of the

magistrate’s report has the same effect as would a failure to object. The district court’s

attention is not focused on any specific issues for review, thereby making the initial reference

to the magistrate useless.”);United States v. One Parcel of Real Prop., 73 F.3d 1057, 1060

(10th Cir. 1996) (adopting the rule of Goney, Lockert, and Howard).

Petitioner in this case has made only a general objection. Petitioner "objects to [the

magistrate's ] legal conclusions and the factual findings upon which they are based," but he

never specifies why the R&R is in error. Doc #33 at 2. In fact, Petitioner's objection is a

verbatim copy of his original petition. No arguments have been added, none deleted. With

the exception of titles, headings, and a few inconsequential passages, no words have been

changed. 

Magistrate Judge Edmonds has already addressed the issues raised in the petition. Reformatting the petition as an objection provides this Court with no guidance as to what

portions of the R&R Petitioner considers to be incorrect. 

The Court will follow the cases cited above and deem Petitioner’s objections

ineffective. This ruling comports with the clear language of Rule 72(b) that a district judge

"shall make a de novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition

to which specific written objection has been made[.]" Id. (emphasis added). There is no such

portion of the R&R in this case; Petitioner has made no specific written objection. Because

Petitioner has made no effective objection, the Court is relieved of any obligation to review

the R&R. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (Section 636(b)(1) "does not . . . require any review

at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (same). 

The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

Case 2:04-cv-01517-DGC-GEE Document 36 Filed 05/31/06 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (same).

 IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Glenda Edmonds’ R&R (Doc. #28) is accepted.

2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) is denied.

3. The Clerk of shall terminate this action.

DATED this 30th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-01517-DGC-GEE Document 36 Filed 05/31/06 Page 4 of 4