He therefore has failed to fairly present Ground One to Ohio's highest court. See Bushner v. Larose, No. 5:14-cv-385, 2017 WL 1199160, at *8 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2017) (concluding that petitioner did not satisfy the McMeans standard when he presented only a general assignment of error alleging that the trial court's failure to give proper jury instructions on self-defense and the castle doctrine was reversible and plain error); Hogg v. Warden Corr. Reception Ctr., No. 14-3489, 2015 WL 13928540, at *2 (6th Cir. Feb. 25, 2015) (citing McMeans, 228 F.3d at 681) (affirming a district court's determination that petitioner failed to fairly present his jury instruction argument concerning the castle doctrine to the state courts, where he had only argued that the trial court erred in finding the victim entered his house lawfully, precluding the doctrine's application).
However, "verbatim regurgitation of the arguments made in earlier filings are not true objections." Bushner v. Larose, No. 5:14CV00385, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49451, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2017). Plaintiff also made the same arguments in response to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and failed to address the mootness argument.
However, "verbatim regurgitation of the arguments made in earlier filings are not true objections." Bushner v. Larose, No. 5:14CV00385, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49451, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2017). When an "objection" merely states disagreement with the magistrate judge's suggested resolution, it is not an objection for the purposes of this review.
"[A]lleged errors in jury instructions are generally considered matters of state law and are not cognizable in federal habeas review." Bushner v. Larose, No. 5:14-cv-00385, 2017 WL 1199160, at *10 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2017) (citing Sutton v. Lazaroff, No. 3:13-cv-2304, 2015 WL 5178022, at *16 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 4, 2015). Alleged errors in jury instructions normally do not rise to the level of federal constitutional violations.
"[V]erbatim regurgitation of the arguments made in earlier filings are not true objections." Bushner v. Larose, No. 5:14CV00385, 2017 WL 1199160, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 31, 2017). When an "objection" merely states disagreement with the magistrate judge's suggested resolution, it is not an objection for the purposes of this review.