Jefferson v. Jenkins

JAMES C. DEVER III United States District Judge

On April 12, 2019, Magistrate Judge Numbers issued a Memorandum and Recommendation ("M&R") and recommended that the court dismiss Michael J. Jefferson's ("Jefferson" or "petitioner") 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to state a claim [D.E. 5]. On April 22, 2019, Jefferson objected to the M&R [D.E. 6, 7].

"The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (emphasis, alteration, and quotation omitted); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Absent a timely objection, "a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation." Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). Moreover, the court need not conduct de novo review if a party makes "general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations." Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982); see United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007).

Jefferson's objections do not meaningfully address the M&R. Because there is no clear error on the face of the record, the court accepts the recommendations in the M&R.

Alternatively, the court overrules Jefferson's objections. Jefferson's challenge to a state child support order is not cognizable under section 2254. See Jones v. Cun ningham, 371 U.S. 236, 237-40 (1963); Wilson v. Flaherty, 689 F.3d 332, 339 (4th Cir. 2012); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 268-69 (6th Cir. 1984); Mitchell v. Chapman, No. 3:10CV577, 2011 WL 577018, at *2 (W.D.N.C. Feb. 8, 2011) (unpublished).

In sum, the court ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 5], OVERRULES Jefferson's objections [D.E. 6, 7], and DISMISSES Jefferson's petition for failure to state a claim. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). The clerk shall close the case.

SO ORDERED. This 1 day of May 2019.

/s/_________

JAMES C. DEVER III

United States District Judge