Jerard Garrett v. Laura Plappert, Warden

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky overruled Jerard Garrett’s objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and adopted the recommendation in full. The court denied Garrett’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, concluding that his claims were procedurally defaulted, noncognizable, or failed under applicable federal law. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and certified that an appeal could not be taken in good faith.

Holdings

1. Objections that merely repeat arguments previously presented or disagree with the magistrate judge's recommendation without identifying a specific factual or legal error do not trigger de novo review.
2. A petitioner may not raise a new legal argument for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
3. A habeas petitioner challenging a state-court evidentiary ruling cannot satisfy § 2254(d)(1) without identifying a Supreme Court case establishing a due-process right concerning the specific type of evidence at issue.
4. A certificate of appealability must be denied when reasonable jurists would not debate the district court's resolution of the constitutional claims or its procedural rulings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Garrett's objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation were sufficiently specific to require de novo review.
2. Whether Garrett's challenges to state-court evidentiary rulings established a violation of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
3. Whether Garrett's newly raised due-process theory could be considered for the first time in objections to the report and recommendation.
4. Whether Garrett's witness-identification and prosecutorial-misconduct claims were procedurally defaulted.
5. Whether Garrett was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed