United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Norfolk Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RAYMOND A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is currently before the Court on Scott Tremayne
Griffin's ("Plaintiff") pro se
objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation ("R&R"). For the reasons set
forth below, the R&R is ACCEPTED and
ADOPTED. Plaintiffs Petition for Writ of
Error Coram Nobis is DENIED AND DISMISSED.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Magistrate Judge's R&R thoroughly details the factual
and procedural history of the case. See ECF No. 12
at 1-5. On October 2, 1998, Petitioner was pulled over by
Virginia Beach police officers shortly after leaving his
hotel room. ECF No. 1 at 1. Police officers arrested
Petitioner, seized his hotel room key, and executed a search
of his hotel room. Id. On April 21, 1999, Petitioner
was indicted by a federal grand jury on cocaine distribution
charges. Id at 3. During the suppression hearing,
Petitioner's appointed attorney Jon Babineau did not test
the legality of the warrantless search and seizure of
Petitioner's hotel room, and Petitioner's suppression
motion was denied. Id. After the suppression
hearing, Petitioner was appointed a new attorney, James
Broccoletti. Id. Petitioner informed Mr, Broccoletti
about the illegality of the search, however, Mr. Broccoetti
did not make any objection to the evidence. Id A
jury found Petitioner guilty of the charges. Id.
trial, Plaintiff hired appellate attorney Anthony Mulford to
prepare and file his direct appeal. Id. Petitioner
informed Mr. Mulford about Mr. Babineau's and Mr.
Broccoletti's failure to object to the illegality of the
search. Id. Petitioner also informed Mr. Mulford
about missing discovery that later came to his attention.
Id. Mr. Mulford however, did not raise these issues
on appeal and Petitioner's direct appeal was denied.
September 15, 2017, Petitioner filed a Complaint against the
United States, Jon M. Babineau, Ronald G. Reel, James
Broccoletti, Anthony Mulford, and the Virginia Beach Police
Department. ECF No. 1 at 1. Petitioner challenged his
conviction and argued that Defendants "deliberately
violat[ed] Petitioners [sic] 4th, 5th,
and 6th amendment rights" when they
"conspired to commit fraud on the Court by deliberately
omitting the warrantless search and seizure by police from
the record and completely failing to address its
legality." Id. at 4. On November 24, 2017,
Petitioner amended his Complaint. ECF No. 3. On December 12,
2017, the Court entered an Order advising Petitioner to
submit a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in proper form.
ECF No. 4. Petitioner filed a Memorandum in Support of Error
Coram Nobis (hereinafter "Petition") on March 7,
2018. ECF No. 6. Magistrate Judge Lawrence R. Leonard issued
his R&R on October 25, 2018 and recommended the Court
deny and dismiss the case. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff filed his
written objection to the R&R on November 2, 2018. ECF No.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 72(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
district judge is required to "determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition
that has been properly objected to." The de
novo requirement means that a district court judge must
give "fresh consideration" to the objected-to
portions of the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation. See Wilmer v. Cook, 774 F.2d 68, 73
(4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S.
667, 675 (1980). "The district judge may accept, reject,
or modify the recommended disposition; receive further
evidence; or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).
district court must review the relevant findings by the
Magistrate Judge de novo when a party properly
objects to the Magistrate Judge's report and
recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Objections made
to the report must be made "with sufficient specificity
so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true
ground of the objection." United Slates v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). Objections
must also respond to specific errors in the report and
recommendation because general or conclusory objections are
not proper. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47
(4th Cir. 1982). General or conclusory objections are the
equivalent of a waiver. Id.
objects with a filing that in no way addresses the Magistrate
Judge's conclusions in the R&R. ECF No. 14. In his
objection, Plaintiff argues that the officers illegally
searched his hotel room and that his defense lawyers
deliberately failed to question the legality of the search.
Id. These arguments parallel the same arguments
Plaintiff made in his Complaint. See ECF Nos. 1, 3.
Court affirms the Magistrate Judge's findings. While an
objecting party may re-raise arguments presented to the
magistrate, a mere duplication of the arguments raised in the
previous filings does not constitute an objection for the
purposes of district court review. See Nichols v.
Colvin, 100 F.Supp. 3d 487, 497 (E.D. Va. 2015) (citing
Abou-Hussein v. Mabus, No. 2:09-1998, 2010 WL
4340935, at * 1 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2010)). Here, Plaintiffs
objection to the Magistrate Judge's R&R fails because
it is identical to the arguments made in Plaintiffs initial
Complaint and does not specifically address the Magistrate
Judge's conclusions. Therefore, the Court concludes
Plaintiffs filing lacks the specificity necessary to alert
the Court of a proper objection to the Magistrate Judge's
on a cle novo review of the filings and the R&R,
this Court determines that the Magistrate Judge's
recommendations and findings are proper, Wilmer, 774
F.2d at 73. The R&R supports all factual findings and the
Court finds Plaintiffs objections are without merit. The
Court does not find any legal errors in the Magistrate
Judge's findings. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
Plaintiff raises no grounds which warrant this Court's
departure from the recommendations as stated in the
Magistrate Judge's R&R.