The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SHAWN E. MIDDLEBROOKS, ) Case No. 3:19-CV-02759
)
Petitioner, ) Judge J. Philip Calabrese
)
v. ) Magistrate Judge
) Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong
WARDEN HAROLD MAY, )
)
Respondent. )
)
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Shawn E. Middlebrooks objects to the Magistrate Judge’s Report
and Recommendation that the Court dismiss Petitioner’s habeas petition. For the
reasons that follow, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections (ECF No. 37),
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, subject to certain
clerical corrections (ECF No. 34), and DENIES AND DISMISSES the petition.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On direct appeal in State court, the intermediate appellate court set forth the
following facts leading to the conviction and sentence of Petitioner Shawn
Middlebrooks. See generally State v. Middlebrooks, No. 18-CR-46, 2019-Ohio-2149,
¶¶ 2–12 (Ohio Ct. App.).
On the morning of September 9, 2017, a Sandusky County Sheriff’s deputy and
several U.S. Marshals were conducting surveillance on a motel room, which was
located in a well-known high-traffic area for drug activity. (Id.) One of the Marshals
witnessed a male approach the motel room and engage in a hand-to-hand exchange
with a man later identified as Mr. Middlebrooks. (Id.) Under the impression that a
drug exchange occurred, the U.S. Marshals and sheriff’s deputy followed the male in
his truck and initiated a stop. (Id.) When stopped, the driver admitted to tossing
crack cocaine that he had just purchased into a weedy area, and he later identified
the individual who sold him the drugs as Mr. Middlebrooks. (Id.) Law enforcement
executed a search warrant for the motel room where they located a box underneath a
window, accessible from both inside and outside the room, that contained heroin and
a digital scale. (Id.) Further, law enforcement found four cell phones and seized $534
in cash from Mr. Middlebrooks’s person. (Id.)
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. State Conviction
In the report and recommendation, the Magistrate Judge set forth the history
of this case. (ECF No. 34, PageID #740–44.) On January 11, 2018, a grand jury
indicted Petitioner on one count of possession of heroin and one count of trafficking
in heroin. (ECF No. 8-1, PageID #54–56.) On May 6, 2018, Petitioner filed a motion
to suppress all evidence obtained from the search of his motel room on the grounds
that the affidavit in support of the search warrant was defective. (Id., PageID
#57–63.) After a hearing, the State trial court denied the motion. (Id., PageID #69.)
On July 20, 2018, a jury found Petitioner guilty of possession of heroin and not
guilty of trafficking in heroin. (Id., PageID #70.) Before sentencing, Petitioner filed
a motion for acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure
or for a new trial on the basis of insufficient evidence. (Id., PageID #71–81.) The
State court denied that motion. (Id., PageID #82.) On July 27, 2018, the State court
sentenced Petitioner to eight years of imprisonment. (Id., PageID #83–85.)
B. Direct Appeal
On August 8, 2018, Petitioner timely appealed his conviction. (Id., PageID
#87–88.) In his brief, Petitioner asserted three assignments of error, including, as
relevant here, that the verdicts were not supported by sufficient evidence and fell
against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Id., PageID #98.) On May 31, 2019, the
State intermediate appellate court rejected all of Petitioner’s assignments of error
and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. (Id., PageID #146–61.) After the appellate
court’s ruling, Petitioner timely appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. (Id., PageID
#163–64.) In his memorandum in support of jurisdiction, he asserted several
propositions of law, including: (1) reliance on evidence of drug trafficking to support
constructive possession is improper where the defendant was acquitted of trafficking;
(2) the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress violated the Fourth Amendment;
(3) the State magistrate failed to determine that the confidential informant
referenced in the affidavit in support of the search warrant for Petitioner’s hotel room
was reliable; and (4) Petitioner had standing to challenge the unconstitutional stop
of another individual. (Id., PageID #167.) On October 1, 2019, the Ohio Supreme
Court declined to exercise jurisdiction. (Id., PageID #184.)
C. Federal Habeas Petition
On November 22, 2019, Petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus. (ECF
No. 1, PageID #1–15.) The petition asserts a single ground for relief. (Id.) In his
petition, Petitioner asserts that his conviction violates his due process rights because
insufficient evidence supports his conviction for felony possession of heroin. (Id.) The
Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that the Court deny the
petition because Petitioner’s sole claim for relief lacks merit. (ECF No. 34, PageID
#758.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court find Petitioner did not meet
the heavy burden of showing that no “rational trier of fact could have found the
essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Id., PageID #752
& #758.) On January 27, 2023, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 37.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court judge may designate a magistrate judge to “submit to a judge
of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a
judge of the court,” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
which the Court does by local rule, see Local Rule 72.2. When reviewing a report and
recommendation, if a party timely objects, the district court is required to “make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States
v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949–50 (6th Cir. 1981). Objections must be specific, not
general and should direct the Court’s attention to a particular dispute. Howard v.
Secretary of Health & Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). “The filing of
objections to a magistrate’s report enables the district judge to focus attention on
those issues factual and legalthat are at heart of the parties’ dispute.” Thomas
v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147 (1985).
On 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). Importantly, the Court’s job is not to conduct a free-wheeling
examination of the entire report and recommendation, but only to address any
specific objections that a party has advanced to some identified portion of it.
Accordingly, it is the Court’s task in this matter to review the Magistrate Judge’s
report and recommendation de novo, based on the specific objections Petitioner raises.
ANALYSIS
Where a petitioner “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States,” he is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 2241(c)(3) & 2254(a). At bottom, the writ tests the fundamental fairness of the
State court proceedings resulting in the deprivation of the petitioner’s liberty. See,
e.g., Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 463 (1953); Powell v. Collins, 332 F.3d 376, 388
(6th Cir. 2003) (citing Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67–68 (1991)); Skaggs v.
Parker, 235 F.3d 261, 266 (6th Cir. 2000).
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) provides:
An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted
with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State
court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim –
(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the
State court proceeding.
“With the AEDPA, Congress limited the source of law for habeas relief to cases
decided by the United States Supreme Court.” Herbert v. Billy, 160 F.3d 1131, 1135
(6th Cir. 1998); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000).
A State court adjudication is “contrary to” Supreme Court precedent under
Section 2254(d)(1) “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached
by this Court on a question of law,” or “if the state court confronts facts that are
materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent” and arrives
at a different result. Williams, 529 U.S. at 405. Under Section 2254(d)(1), an
unreasonable application of federal law is different than an incorrect application of
federal law. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011) (citing Williams, 529
U.S. at 410). A State court adjudication involves “an unreasonable application of”
Supreme Court precedent under Section 2254(d)(1) in one of two ways: (1) if the State
court identifies the correct governing legal rule from the Supreme Court’s cases but
unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular State prisoner’s case; or (2) if the
State court either unreasonably extends a legal principle from the Court’s precedent
to a new context where it should not apply or unreasonably refuses to extend that
principle to a new context where it should apply. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 407.
I. Factual and Procedural Objections
First, Petitioner objects that the Magistrate Judge committed two clerical
errors in her Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 37, PageID #768). Specifically,
he objects that in two places, the Magistrate Judge referred to him by an incorrect
name. (Id.; see also ECF No. 34, PageID #745.) The Court clarifies for the record
that in each place where Petitioner identifies errors in the Report and
Recommendation, it should say “Middlebrooks,” and otherwise OVERRULES
Petitioner’s objection on this ground.
Second, Petitioner objects that the Magistrate failed to address his amended
petition. (ECF No. 37, PageID #768–69.) On January 19, 2021, the Magistrate Judge
previously assigned to this case granted in part Petitioner’s motion to amend and
allowed him to correct a clerical error in ground one of his petition, but not to add a
second ground for habeas relief. (ECF No. 27, PageID #714.) Pursuant to this order,
Petitioner never filed an amended petition. Further, ground one of Petitioner’s
proposed amended petition is substantively the same as his original petition. (ECF
No. 25-1, PageID #682.) Therefore, the Magistrate Judge properly addressed
Petitioner’s single ground for relief, and the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s
objection.
Third, Petitioner previously objected to an order dated January 19, 2021
denying his motion to strike Respondent’s surreply. (ECF No. 29.) Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge may determine any pretrial matter. A judge “may
reconsider any pretrial matter” only “where it has been shown that the magistrate
judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Id. Here, Petitioner makes no
such showing. Regulating the filings before the Court falls within the authority of
the Magistrate Judge. The record shows no clear error in allowing a surreply. Even
if Petitioner could make such a showing, he fails to articulate any prejudice. For
these reasons, the Court OVERRULES this objection as well.
II. Substantive Objection
Petitioner objects that the Magistrate Judge failed to address certain evidence
and that the State appellate court’s statement of facts is incorrect. (ECF No. 37,
PageID #770–72.) He argues that the Magistrate Judge should have considered this
evidence and determined that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he had
constructive possession of the box containing heroin, which formed the basis for the
charges against him. (ECF No. 37, PageID #773–89.) He argues that the testimony
of a U.S. Marshal Task Force Officer at his State court trial was untrue because it
incorrectly explained where he located the box containing the heroin—inside or
outside the motel room. (Id., PageID #771–72.) In support of this assertion, he points
to arguments made in his traverse, and police reports and photos attached thereto.
(Id.) For that reason, he argues, the Court must “compel the Magistrate Judge to
address the corrected facts identified in the traverse,” or issue the writ. (Id., PageID
#772.)
The specific paragraphs of the Report and Recommendation to which
Petitioner objects quote the State court of appeals opinion. (ECF No. 34, PageID
#741.) The Court notes that the Magistrate Judge’s quotations are an accurate
reflection of the State court’s ruling and OVERRULES Petitioner’s objection insofar
as it challenges the inclusion of that quoted language in the report and
recommendation. However, interpreting Petitioner’s pro se pleading liberally, the
Court interprets his objection as being to the portion of the report and
recommendation that addresses the police reports and photos. (Id., PageID #751.)
Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion that the photographs he attached to his
traverse were included in the record “by the Magistrate Judge’s predecessor as
submitted,” the Magistrate Judge previously assigned to this case struck that
material because it was not part of the record at trial. (ECF No. 27, PageID #712.)
And Petitioner makes no claim that these reports and photos were unavailable to him
at trial, no claim of actual innocence based on new evidence, and no argument for
relief based on a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or another error
of similar magnitude. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge did not err when she declined
to address the police reports and photos in her analysis of Petitioner’s claim. (ECF
No. 34, PageID #755–58.) For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on this ground.
III. General Objections
Petitioner’s remaining objections argue that the Magistrate Judge erred when
she recommended dismissing Petitioner’s ground for relief and re-assert arguments
made in his traverse concerning constructive possession. (ECF No. 37, PageID
#774–89; ECF No. 20, Page ID #624–25.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), a party
must specify the proposed findings or recommendations to which an objection is
made. Petitioner does not identify any specific error in the Magistrate Judge’s factual
findings or legal conclusions; rather he reiterates arguments that he raised in his
petition and traverse. A general objection to a magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation, which fails to specify the issues of contention, does not satisfy the
requirements for filing objections. Howard, 932 F.2d at 509. In any event, the record
fails to establish any violation of Petitioner’s rights that legally or factually meets the
standard for the issuance of a writ.
Petitioner’s remaining objections and their various subparts are general and
objected to the overarching issue of sufficiency of the evidence that he constructively
possessed the heroin at issue in his underlying criminal case. (ECF No. 37, PageID
#773.) On review of the record, Petitioner appears to question the validity of his
conviction for possession of heroin as inconsistent with his acquittal for trafficking in
heroin. However, these charges contain different elements—an acquittal for
trafficking does not preclude a conviction for possession. On the record presented,
the jury could convict on possession (on a theory of constructive possession ) while
acquitting on trafficking.
Because the Magistrate Judge adequately addressed these general issues in
her Report and Recommendation based on the evidence presented at trial, this Court
will not address them again here, except to note that the record legally and factually
supports the judgment of the State courts. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES
Petitioner’s general objections.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections
(ECF No. 37; ECF No. 29), ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation (ECF No. 34), including the recommendation that Petitioner’s
current warden Keith Foley be substituted as Respondent in place of former warden
Lyneal Wainwright under Rule 25(d) (id., PageID #739, n.1; ECF No. 38), and
DENIES AND DISMISSES the petition. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, the Court
declines to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 15, 2023
J. Philip Calabrese
United States District Judge
Northern District of Ohio
11