United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KEITH STARRETT, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, Review by the District Judge  ("Motion for Review"). Petitioner, Johnny Ray Sims ("Petitioner"), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus  pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on June 10, 2013. The current matter stems from the Magistrate Judge's Order  denying Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel , Objection to and Motion to Strike Respondent's "Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Traverse"  ("Motion to Strike"), and Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery and to Expand the Record Herein  ("Motion for Discovery"). For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On September 30, 2013, Petitioner included a request for counsel in his Traverse . Petitioner asserted that, because of the "highly technical standards" in his case and his "lack of legal training, " appointment of counsel was appropriate. ( See Traverse  at p. 11.) Before a ruling could be made, Petitioner subsequently objected to and moved to strike the Respondent's Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Traverse  ("Response") on October 23, 2013, stating that it was an "unauthorized pleading" under the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254, which Petitioner interprets as giving the "final closing argument on paper" to the petitioner in a habeas corpus case. ( See Motion to Strike  at p. 1.) A few days later, on October 28, 2013, Petitioner filed motions requesting discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner listed the pieces of evidence he hoped to obtain from discovery, and argued that the court must grant him an evidentiary hearing because he had "alleged facts which, if found to be true, would entitle him to habeas relief." ( See Motion for Discovery  at pp. 1-2.) On December 16, 2013, Petitioner filed a motion to substitute party pursuant to the immediate custodian rule, as the previously named Respondent Ron King was no longer superintendent of the South Mississippi Correctional Institution (SMCI) in Leakesville, Mississippi and had been replaced by Johnnie Denmark. ( See Notice  ("Motion to Substitute Party") at pp. 1-2.)
The Honorable Michael T. Parker, United States Magistrate Judge ("Magistrate Judge"), considered all motions put forth by Petitioner and issued an order on March 12, 2014, denying all motions but the Motion to Substitute Party. ( See Order .) In response, Petitioner filed his Motion for Review  on March 24, 2014, objecting to the Magistrate Judge's denial of his motions. No objection is made with respect to the Motion to Substitute Party.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, a party may file an objection to a magistrate judge's order within fourteen days of being served a copy. For nondispositive matters, the district judge "must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). This standard of review is "extremely deferential" to the magistrate judge's order. Shukh v. Seagate Tech., LLC, 295 F.R.D. 228, 235 (D. Minn. 2013). "As in other appeals, the court may affirm a correct order of the magistrate judge on grounds that he did not cite or that were not raised before him." Griffin v. Raytheon Co. Long Term Disability Plan No. 558, No. 3:04cv2179, 2005 WL 4891214, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2005); cf. United States v. Buck, 324 F.3d 786, 795 n.18 (5th Cir. 2003) ("[W]hen the judgment of the district court is correct, this court may affirm for reasons not given by the district court and not advanced to it.'") (quoting United States v. Giraldo, 111 F.3d 21, 24 n.12 (5th Cir. 1997)).
When a magistrate judge makes a dispositive ruling, the district judge is required to review properly objected to issues de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No deference is given to the magistrate judge's order under a de novo review. See Salve Regina College v. Russell, 499 U.S. 225, 238, 111 S.Ct. 1217, 113 L.Ed.2d 190 (1991). Though the motions dealt with in the Magistrate Judge's Order were all nondispositive in nature, meaning the Order will only be modified or set aside if it "is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law, " even under a more stringent de novo review, the outcome of the Court's analysis would not change.
The Court will address Petitioner's objections in the order they are presented in his Motion for Review .
A. Objection to and Motion to Strike Response
Petitioner's main contention in moving to strike Respondent's Response  from the record is that the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 are meant to give the petitioner the "final argument." ( See Motion to Strike  at p. 1.) However, if the purpose is to give the petitioner in a habeas case the "final word, " that purpose has been fulfilled here. Petitioner has filed numerous documents with the Court since the Response was filed, including a Supplemental Legal Brief in Support of Traverse  and a Supplemental Memorandum of Law  in further support of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, while the Respondent, during the same period, has filed only a Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Discovery . It is clear that justice is not frustrated by allowing the Response  to remain in the record. The Magistrate Judge's ruling in denying Petitioner's Motion to Strike , then, will stand.
B. Motion to Conduct Discovery
Rule 6(a) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 states that discovery can be granted to a party "for good cause." Petitioner admits that he failed to demonstrate good cause in his original motion and attempts to rectify this in his objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order. ( See Motion for Review  at p. 3.) The Fifth Circuit, however, has held that "issues raised for the first time in objections to the report of a magistrate judge are not properly before the district judge." Finley v. Johnson, 243 F.3d 215, 219 n.3 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. Armstrong, 951 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir. ...