Opinion
CASE NO. 2:08-CV-0632.
January 5, 2010
ORDER
On December 2, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 be dismissed. Petitioner has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. For the reasons that follow, petitioner's objections are OVERRULED, The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.
Petitioner objects to all of the Magistrate Judge's recommendations. He again raises all of the same arguments he previously presented. Petitioner contends that the prosecutor exhibited an "ongoing strategy to bolster the statements of two unreliable complainants," Objections, at 4, and that he thereby was denied a fair trial. Petitioner contends that the prosecutor's violation of Ohio's rape shield law must be considered in the context of his claim of prosecutorial misconduct, and that he was denied due process, his right to confront his accusers, and the effective assistance of counsel. Id., at 8-11.
However, for the reasons detailed in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, petitioner's claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on the prosecutor's alleged violation of Ohio's rape shield law, as well as his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on his attorney's failure to object, are procedurally defaulted. Further, after careful review of the entire record, and for the reasons discussed in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, this Court likewise concludes that petitioner's claims are waived or fail to provide a basis for habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court has conducted a de novo review. For the reasons detailed in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, petitioner's objections are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. This action is hereby DISMISSED.