Opinion ID: 746452
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failing to mention the effects of alcohol as to the specific intent requirement....

Text: 46 The first point was followed by about a page of argument. Points II and III were not similarly followed by argumentation, but merely stated Mr. Neuman relies on the memorandum of law previously filed. 47 The memorandum of law referred to included the same three point headings, with extensive accompanying arguments. The memorandum also included a fourth heading: 48 IV. Mr. Neuman may have been denied effective assistance of counsel as required by the constitution by the trial court's ruling that counsel's resting prohibited Mr. Neuman from testifying. 49 This point heading was followed by several pages of argument, which, without question, explored the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. 50 The magistrate judge's report and recommendation explicitly included a discussion of Neuman's claim of IAC, and the reasons for rejecting that claim. 51 The district court's opinion accompanying the order denying Neuman's petition began by setting for verbatim all four of Neuman's arguments before the magistrate judge. It then stated that, following the magistrate's report and recommendation, Neuman filed objections to the R & R, objecting only to the Magistrate's conclusions regarding the first three issues (emphasis added). 52 This court has held that, under some circumstances, referring to previously filed documents is sufficient to state an objection to a magistrate judge's report and recommendations. Kelly v. Withrow, 25 F.3d 363, 366 (6th Cir.1994). However, the court in that case cautioned that We do not pronounce a general rule that every attempt to incorporate other documents by reference in lieu of spelling out specific objections to a magistrate's report will suffice. Ibid. The court in Kelly discussed objections to magistrate's reports as follows: 53 Before reaching the substantive issues raised by the petitioner, we must deal with the respondent's assertion that Kelly waived the right to appeal by failing to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendations. 54 ... 55 Exercising its supervisory power over the district courts, this court held in United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (1981), that a party must file timely objections to a magistrate's report with the district court in order to preserve the right to appeal. The purpose of such objections is to provide the district court with the opportunity to consider the specific contentions of the parties and to correct any errors immediately. Id. at 950. The Supreme Court upheld this rule in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985), a habeas corpus case. The Court stated that [t]he filing of objections to a magistrate's report enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues--factual and legal--that are at the heart of the parties' dispute. Id. at 147, 106 S.Ct. at 471 (footnote omitted). 56 In Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir.1987), we stated that only those specific objections to the magistrate's report made to the district court will be preserved for appellate review; making some objections but failing to raise others will not preserve all the objections a party may have. 57 The only case we have found in which a party attempted to incorporate previous filings by reference in objections to a magistrate's report and recommendations provides little help. In Howard v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir.1991), the party who lost before the magistrate filed a document in which she specifically objected to the magistrate's determination to deny her request for relief and stated that she supported her objections by relying on her earlier brief in support of her motion for summary judgment. The record disclosed, however, that the party had previously filed neither a summary judgment motion nor a brief. In holding that the party had waived appellate review we wrote: 58 A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects 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. The functions of the district court are effectively duplicated as both the magistrate and the district court perform identical tasks. The duplication of time and effort wastes judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purposes of the Magistrates Act. 59 Id. at 509. 60 The requirement for specific objections to a magistrate judge's report is not jurisdictional and a failure to comply may be excused in the interest of justice. Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1222-23 (6th Cir.1987). In the present case, unlike in Howard, the objections directed the district judge's attention to specific issues decided by the magistrate contrary to Kelly's position. The district judge apparently had no problem in focusing on the specific areas of disagreement between the parties. Thus, the objections served the purposes of the requirement that objections be specific. 61 We do not pronounce a general rule that every attempt to incorporate other documents by reference in lieu of spelling out specific objections to a magistrate's report will suffice. The circumstances of this case--in particular, the district judge's acknowledgment that he was able to understand and review the specific determinations of the magistrate objected to by the petitioner--lead us to conclude that we should consider the merits of this appeal. We caution the attorneys of the circuit that a concise statement of specific holdings of the magistrate judge to which exception is taken is the preferred and safer course. 62 25 F.3d at 365-66. 63 In one sense, Neuman has a better case than the appellant in Howard, who had previously filed neither the motion nor brief in which she purportedly discussed her objections. Neuman really did file the memorandum before the magistrate judge that he referred to in the objections before the district court. However, by specifically relying on only some of the points in the brief, while omitting others, Neuman appears to have directed the district judge's attention away from specific issues decided against him. Here, unlike Kelly, the court did not acknowledge that it was able to understand the specific determinations of the magistrate objected to by the petitioner. Indeed, the district court opinion indicated that the contrary was true. Under these circumstances, we find that merely referring to some parts of the previously-filed memorandum did not adequately call the district court's attention to the ineffective assistance claim, especially when the specific references to the other three points clearly implied that the fourth point was not being raised. The reference was not sufficiently specific to satisfy the standards announced by this court in cases including Walters, Smith, Howard, and Kelly.