United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
ORDER & OPINION
JULIE E. CARNES, Chief District Judge.
This case is before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's Final Report and Recommendation ("R&R")  and petitioner's objections . The Magistrate Judge recommends that petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus  be denied, this action be dismissed, and a certificate of appealability be denied. (R&R  at 14.)
The district court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made" and "may accept, reject, or modify [the R&R], in whole or in part...." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Portions of the R&R to which no objection is made are reviewed only for clear error. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed.App'x 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006)(per curiam).
Petitioner objects to the R&R as to all four grounds of his petition. In ground one, petitioner claims that the trial court should have suppressed his statement to police as involuntary. (R&R  at 8.) The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that the statement was voluntary, and the Magistrate Judge determined that the court's conclusion is (1) neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law and (2) not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. ( Id. at 8-9.) The Magistrate Judge explained that the court considered petitioner's "characteristics, including his age and actions, and the details of the interrogation, including the administration of Miranda  rights, the offers... to consult with a parent, and the decision to charge at the end of the interview." ( Id. at 9.)
Petitioner objects that (1) he has a low level of education, (2) his mother would have known "what was best, " and (3) he was afraid and did not know that he could decline to speak to police as a witness. (Pet'r's Obj.  at 2.) Those objections do not alter the totality of circumstances that the Georgia Supreme Court considered, and they do not satisfy the standard for federal habeas corpus relief. Petitioner also asks this Court to review five cases,  but those cases do not assist petitioner because they are not United States Supreme Court cases. ( See R&R  at 6-7.) The Magistrate Judge correctly determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on ground one.
Petitioner's objections as to grounds two, three, and four merely repeat arguments in his petition. ( See Pet'r's Obj.  at 2-3; R&R  at 9-13.) Furthermore, petitioner fails to address the Magistrate Judge's determination that a portion of ground three and all of ground four are procedurally defaulted. (R&R  at 4-6.) The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly considered petitioner's arguments and correctly determined that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief on grounds two, three, and four.
It is hereby Ordered that the Court OVERRULES petitioner's objections  and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R  DENYING the § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus , DISMISSING this action, and DENYING a ...