United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
ALGENON L. MARBLEY, JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Chelsey M. Vascura, Magistrate Judge.
a state prisoner, brings this petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter is
before the Court on its own motion to consider the
sufficiency of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. For the reasons that follow, the Magistrate Judge
RECOMMENDS that this action be
and Procedural History
challenges his convictions pursuant to his no contest pleas
in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas on aggravated
burglary, burglary, and attempted aggravated burglary. On
January 21, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the judgment
of the trial court. State v. Sullivan, No. 15AP-809,
2016 WL 300175 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. Jan. 21, 2016). On May
18, 2016, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept
jurisdiction of the appeal. State v. Sullivan, 145
Ohio St.3d 1472 (Ohio 2016). On October 31, 2016, the United
States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of
certiorari. Sullivan v. Ohio, 137 S.Ct. 395 (2016).
October 26, 2017, Petitioner executed this habeas corpus
petition. He asserts that his convictions violate the Fourth
Amendment because police obtained evidence via warrantless
GPS searches, and the state courts unconstitutionally applied
the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule. However,
as a general matter, the Fourth Amendment does not provide a
basis for federal habeas corpus relief, so long as the
petitioner had an opportunity to present the claim to the
state courts. Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 482
(1976); Riley v. Gray, 674 F.2d 522, 526 (6th Cir.
1982) (opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth
Amendment claim exists where the state procedural mechanism
presents an opportunity to raise the claim, and presentation
of the claim was not frustrated by a failure of that
One, the key purpose of federal habeas corpus is to free
innocent prisoners. But whether an investigation violated the
Fourth Amendment has no bearing on whether the defendant is
guilty. [Stone v. Powell], at 490, 96 S.Ct. 3037.
Two, exclusion is a prudential deterrent prescribed by the
courts, not a personal right guaranteed by the Constitution.
Any deterrence produced by an additional layer of habeas
review is small, but the cost of undoing final convictions is
great. Id. at 493, 96 S.Ct. 3037.
Good v. Berghuis, 729 F.3d 636, 637 (6th Cir. 2013).
Such plainly appear to be the circumstances here. See
State v. Sullivan, 2016 WL 300175, at *1.
the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that this
action be DISMISSED.
party objects to this Report and Recommendation,
that party may, within fourteen days of the date of this
Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to
those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made, together with supporting authority for the
objection(s). A judge of this Court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made. Upon proper objections, a judge of this
Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1).
parties are specifically advised that failure to object to
the Report and Recommendation will result in a
waiver of the right to have the district judge review the
Report and Recommendation de novo, and also operates
as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of the
District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.
See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United
States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
parties are further advised that, if they intend to file an
appeal of any adverse decision, they may submit arguments in
any objections filed, regarding ...