United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
SCOOTER L. ROBINSON PETITIONER
FRANK SHAW, ET AL. RESPONDENTS
ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
GUIROLA, JR. CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
CAUSE comes before the Court on the Proposed Findings of Fact
and Recommendation  of United States Magistrate Judge
Robert H. Walker entered on January 27, 2017. Magistrate
Judge Walker reviewed Petitioner's Application for Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the
Respondent's answer, and the state court record. He
determined that the grounds asserted in the Application did
not entitle Petitioner to relief, and therefore recommended
that the application be denied and the petition dismissed.
The petitioner filed an objection to the Proposed Findings of
Fact and Recommendation, which the Court overrules. The
Magistrate Judge's recommendation will be adopted by the
Court, and this cause dismissed.
Robinson was convicted of failure to stop for a law
enforcement officer and aggravated assault on a peace officer
as a habitual offender. It appears from the record that
Robinson had been arrested on a drug charge in Pearl River
County and was in a hospital, in police custody, when he
escaped. The Mississippi Court of Appeals summarized the
events that followed:
Local law enforcement agencies were notified of
Robinson's escape and worked together to determine his
whereabouts. The Mississippi Highway Patrol (MHP) encountered
Robinson on the highway and a high-speed pursuit followed.
Robinson eventually pulled over, but when Trooper Paul
Fernandez asked Robinson (the driver) to step out of the car,
he sped off. Trooper Fernandez notified local law enforcement
of Robinson's location, and they set up a roadblock.
Approaching the roadblock, and still in high-speed pursuit,
MHP rammed Robinson's car in an attempt to stop the
When Robinson attempted to go around the roadblock, law
enforcement shot at the car's tires in order to disable
the vehicle. A deputy with the Pearl River County
Sheriff's Department, Donnie Saucier, approached the
vehicle. Initially, he went to the passenger side and shot
into the right front tire. Deputy Saucier then went to the
driver's side, calling Robinson by name and warning him
to stop. Robinson, however, was still trying to maneuver the
car to escape. Deputy Saucier reached into the car and
grabbed Robinson by his shirt, attempting to apprehend him.
Robinson pulled the deputy partially into the vehicle, hit
the accelerator, and began dragging the officer. Fearful for
his life, Deputy Saucier fired a shot into Robinson's
left thigh, and Robinson released him. Deputy Saucier fell to
the pavement, sustaining “minor scrapes and
bruises.” Law enforcement continued to pursue Robinson,
whose car now had four flat tires. Trooper Fernandez hit the
vehicle again, and Robinson finally stopped and surrendered
Robinson v. State, 169 So.3d 916, 919 (Miss. Ct.
Robinson's conviction, the trial court sentenced him to
two concurrent life sentences. He appealed his conviction,
and it was confirmed by the Mississippi Court of Appeals.
Robinson then filed this federal petition for writ of habeas
corpus. Magistrate Judge Walker noted that, with the
exception of the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate
counsel, all of the grounds presented in this habeas petition
had been presented to the Mississippi Court of Appeals. He
applied the deferential standard of review set out in 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d) to each of the previously presented
grounds for relief and conducted a de novo review of the
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim.
Court must review any objected-to portions of a report and
recommendation de novo. See Kreimerman v. Casa
Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, 646 (5th Cir.
1994); Longmire v. Guste, 921 F.2d 620, 623 (5th
Cir. 1991). Such a review means that the Court will consider
the record which has been developed before the Magistrate
Judge and make its own determination on the basis of that
record. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 675
(1980). The Court need not, however, conduct a de
novo review when the objections are frivolous,
conclusive, or general in nature. Battle v. U.S. Parole
Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). Merely
reurging the allegations in the petition or attacking the
underlying conviction is insufficient to receive de
novo review. Pacheco v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No.
5:14-CV-88-DCB-MTP, 2015 WL 5156771, at *2 (S.D.Miss. Sept.
2, 2015). See also Edmond v. Collins, 8 F.3d 290,
293 (5th Cir. 1993) (no factual objection is raised when a
petitioner merely re-urges arguments contained in the
original petition). When a de novo review is not
warranted, the Court need only review the findings and
recommendation and determine whether they are either clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. United States v.
Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
Court has carefully reviewed Robinson's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions and finds one
requiring a de novo review. In his first ground, Robinson
argued that he was denied his constitutional right to a
speedy trial, because his trial occurred three and a half
years after his arrest. As the Magistrate Judge noted, the
speedy trial claim was examined by the state courts under the
standard set out in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514
(1972), as was appropriate because of the three and a half
year delay between Robinson's arrest and trial. The
Magistrate Judge concluded that the state courts had
correctly found no violation of Robinson's right to a
speedy trial because he did not “make a particularized
showing of how the delay impacted him.” Goodrum v.
Quarterman, 547 F.3d 249, 260-61 (5th Cir. 2008).
Robinson objects that he can make such a showing, because the
delay resulted in the Mississippi Crime Lab being unable to
identify which gun fired the bullet that shot him in the
thigh. Further, “the length of time to trial effected
[sic] the officers[‘] memory because of the conflict in
the officers[‘] testimony at trial.” (Pet. Obj.
4, ECF No. 29).
reviewed the trial testimony, the Court finds no uncertainty
about which officer fired the shot that hit Robinson in the
thigh. (See SCR Vol. 8, at 309, 329-30, ECF No.
16-8). In any event, the issue is immaterial to whether
Robinson committed the crimes charged. Accordingly, the Court
overrules Robinson's objection to the Magistrate
Judge's conclusion regarding the purported speedy trial
remainder of Robinson's objections consist of reurging
the grounds for relief presented in his federal habeas
petition. The Magistrate Judge conducted a thorough analysis
of each issue, and Robinson does not demonstrate that the
Magistrate Judge made an error of fact or law. After
reviewing the Proposed Findings of Fact and Recommendation,
the Court finds it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary
to law. It will be adopted as the opinion of this Court.
THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Proposed Findings of
Fact and Recommendation  of United States Magistrate
Judge Robert H. Walker entered in this cause on January 27,
2017, should be, ...