Bradford v. Timmerman-Cooper, No. 5:2007cv01915 - Document 16 (N.D. Ohio 2008)
Court Description: Memorandum of Opinion and Order. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation in whole. The petition is denied and this action is dismissed. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(3), than an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Related documents: 15 , 14 , 1 . Judge John R. Adams on 8/25/08. (R,Sh)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bradford v. Timmerman-Cooper Doc. 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION KEITH W. BRADFORD, Petitioner, vs. DEBORAH TIMMERMAN-COOPER, Warden, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 5:07cv1915 JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS MEMORANDUM OF OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the Court on the Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) filed by Petitioner, Keith Bradford, who is represented by counsel. This action was referred to the Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation on the Petition for Habeas Corpus. In the Report and Recommendation, filed May 27, 2008, the Magistrate Judge found Petitioner’s grounds for relief not well taken and recommended that this Court dismiss the action with prejudice. Petitioner timely filed objections to the Report. The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to conduct a de novo review of those portions of the report and recommendation to which an objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). The Court has been advised, having reviewed the Petition, Respondent’s Return of Writ, Petitioner’s Traverse and Brief, the transcripts, the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s Objections thereto, exhibits and applicable law. The claim raised in the petition was that Petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to prejudicial hearsay testimony. The Magistrate Judge set forth the underlying facts in detail in his Report and Recommendation. Based upon those facts, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Petitioner’s claims lacked merit, as he could not demonstrate that his counsel’s performance satisfied the requirements set forth under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Petitioner objects to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions as follows: Dockets.Justia.com Mr. Bradford objects to the Magistrate’s findings, rationale and recommendations. Petitioner was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution when counsel failed to make any meaningful objections and allowed the admission of prejudicial evidence that should have been excluded. (Doc. 15). Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this matter in light of Petitioner’s objection, the Court finds that the objection is without merit. The Magistrate Judge adequately addressed and analyzed Petitioner’s arguments, which are largely reiterated in this Objection. (See Doc. 14). Those challenges Petitioner has made to the Magistrate Judge’s analysis are not persuasive, as they fail to take into account, among other things, the other evidence elicited at trial regarding the victim’s injuries. Petitioner cannot overcome the presumption under Strickland that trial counsel’s performance was adequate simply by questioning his strategy. Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689-90. Furthermore, Petitioner cannot show that he was prejudiced by the testimony that was permitted at trial, given the other testimony that was presented regarding the nature and extent of the victim’s injuries. Id. at 694. Therefore, he cannot satisfy either prong of the Strickland analysis, and his objections must fail. For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in whole. The petition is denied and this action is dismissed. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 25, 2008 /s/ John R. Adams_________________ Judge John R. Adams UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
