The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Michael R. Barrett
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman's August 30, 2011, Report and Recommendation ("Report") (Doc. 14)*fn1 and Petitioner Lisa Phillips' corresponding pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Report recommends that Petitioner's writ be denied with prejudice. (Doc. 14, 18.)
The parties were given proper notice, pursuant to Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including notice that the parties may waive further appeal if they fail to file objections in a timely manner. See United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949--50 (6th Cir. 1981).*fn2 Petitioner has filed a timely Objection (Doc. 18).
Petitioner's Objection is ripe for review. For the reasons stated below, the Court OVERRULES Petitioner's Objection, and the Report is ADOPTED in its entirety.
Because they are sufficiently detailed in the Report (Doc. 14, 1--5) and in Respondent's Answer/Return of Writ (Doc. 11, 2--6), the Court only repeats the most basic facts here. After being charged with multiple counts of burglary, aggravated burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, and theft from an elderly person or disabled adult, Petitioner initially plead not guilty. However, prior to trial, she withdrew that plea and plead guilty to two counts of aggravated burglary, one count of aggravated robbery, one count of burglary, and one count of robbery. She received a total aggregate sentence of eighteen years. On appeal, the state courts upheld the judgment. Petitioner commenced the instant habeas corpus action on June 15, 2010.
When objections to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation are received on a dispositive matter, the assigned district judge "must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). After review, the district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended decision; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (hanging paragraph). General objections are insufficient to preserve any issues for review; "[a] general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would a failure to object." Neuman v. Rivers, 125 F.3d 315, 323 (6th Cir. 1997) (quoting Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991)).
B. Petitioner Makes no Specific Objections
After requesting an extension of time, Petitioner was granted an additional thirty days in which to file objections to the Report. (Doc. 17, 1; Doc. 19, 1.) Despite this grant of additional time, the entirety of Petitioner's Objection states as follows:
This is in response to the Court's Report and Recommendation regarding the above mentioned case.
Despite the Court's findings, I can most assuredly affirm that my guilty plea was not intelligently entered. I was not fully informed of the subsequent consequences. I only received a dire warning of a three digit sentence if I did not plead guilty. In addition, the transcript of proceedings was given to me missing pages 2--20 as well as my discovery packet that is missing at least the first page and only contains a total of 2 pages.
This entire case is riddled with errors and discrepancies and I call upon the court's swift ...