United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
Norvell T. McIntire, Petitioner,
Michelle Miller, Warden, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JEFFREY J. HELMICK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Norvell T. McIntire, acting pro se, seeks a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, related to his
2013 convictions on charges of rape, gross sexual imposition,
importuning, attempted gross sexual imposition, and public
indecency in the Huron County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas.
(Doc. No. 1). Magistrate Judge David A. Ruiz reviewed the
petition as well as the related briefing pursuant to Local
Rule 72.2(b)(2) and recommends I deny the petition. (Doc. No.
15). McIntire has filed objections to Judge Ruiz's Report
and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 16). McIntire also has filed
motions for appointment of counsel, (Doc. No. 17), a
declaration of indigency, (Doc. No. 18), and for an
evidentiary hearing, (Doc. No. 19). For the reasons stated
below, I overrule McIntire's objections, deny his
motions, and adopt Judge Ruiz's Report and
2, 2013, a Huron County jury returned guilty verdicts against
McIntire for rape, gross sexual imposition, importuning,
attempted gross sexual imposition, and public indecency.
McIntire was acquitted of two other counts of importuning
following a bench trial. He was sentenced to a total of
twelve years in prison.
does not object to Judge Ruiz's recitation of the factual
and procedural history of this case. I adopt those sections
of the Report and Recommendation in full. (Doc. No. 15 at
magistrate judge has filed a report and recommendation, a
party to the litigation may “serve and file written
objections” to the magistrate judge's proposed
findings and recommendations, within 14 days of being served
with a copy. 28 U.S.C. § 636. Written objections
“provide the district court with the opportunity to
consider the specific contentions of the parties and to
correct any errors immediately . . . [and] to focus attention
on those issues - factual and legal - that are at the heart
of the parties' dispute.” Kelly v.
Withrow, 25 F.3d 363, 365 (6th Cir. 1994) (quoting
United States v. Walters, 638 F.3d 947, 949-50 (6th
Cir. 1981) and Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 147
(1985)). A district court must conduct a de novo
review only of the portions of the magistrate judge's
findings and recommendations to which a party has made a
specific objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
(“AEDPA”) prohibits the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus “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;
(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.”
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
asserts ten ...