Hudson v. Gammon
| Decision Date | 30 January 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2828,94-2828 |
| Citation | 46 F.3d 785 |
| Parties | John HUDSON, Appellant, v. Tony GAMMON, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Jane C. Hogan, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellant.
Michael J. Spillane, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, MO, argued, for appellee.
Before LOKEN, Circuit Judge, GODBOLD, * Senior Circuit Judge, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.
Missouri inmate John Hudson appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition. We reverse and remand.
Following a jury trial, Hudson was convicted of four counts of first degree robbery. He filed this pro se habeas petition alleging various constitutional violations, including the denial of effective assistance of counsel and the denial of an impartial jury. After reviewing transcripts of the state court proceedings in which these issues were raised and without conducting an evidentiary hearing, the magistrate judge recommended denying relief. The district court overruled Hudson's objections, noting its belief that they were not specific enough to invoke de novo review, and denied the petition pursuant to the magistrate judge's recommendation. We do not reach the merits of the district court's decision because we believe there was procedural error.
A district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of a magistrate's report and recommendation to which objections are made. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1). Here, the district court relied on the exception recognized in some circuits that de novo review is not required "when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations." Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). Although "[t]here is language in an Eighth Circuit case which indicates this Circuit's approval of such an exception ... [t]he Eighth Circuit has ... repeatedly emphasized the necessity of de novo review, and thus retention by the district court of substantial control over the ultimate disposition of matters referred to a magistrate." Id. (citations omitted).
Liberally construed, Hudson's pro se objections sufficiently directed the district court to the alleged errors. He attempted to bring his specific objections to the court's attention by reciting the portions of the report and recommendation to which he objected and setting forth, with supporting transcript citations, what he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langdeaux v. Lund
...to "liberally construe[]" otherwise general pro se objections to require a de novo review of all "alleged errors," see Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995), and has also been willing to conclude that general objections require "full de novo review" if the record is concise, Be......
-
Cooperative Finance Ass'n, Inc. v. Garst
...not conduct a de novo review of a magistrate judge's report where such review is required, this is reversible error."); Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir.1995) (failure to conduct de novo review when required is reversible error); Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir. 1994) ......
-
Leventhal v. Schaffer
...to "liberally construe[ ]" otherwise general pro se objections to require a de novo review of all "alleged errors," see Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995), and to conclude that general objections require "full de novo review" if the record is concise, Belk, 15 F.3d at 815 ("......
-
McPherson v. Apfel
...(1996); Grinder v. Gammon, 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8th Cir.1996) (citing Belk v. Purkett, 15 F.3d 803, 815 (8th Cir.1994)); Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995) (also citing Belk). Because objections have been filed in each of these cases, the court must conduct a de novo However, t......
-
Federal court issues
...denied , 519 U.S. 860, 117 S.Ct. 164, 126 L.Ed.2d 107 (1996); Grinder v. Gammon , 73 F.3d 793, 795 (8 th Cir. 1996); Hudson v. Gammon , 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8 th Cir. 1995)). Since the statute requires de novo review of “‘those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommend......
-
Table of Cases
...F.3d 661 (8th Cir. Sept. 30, 2003), 8th-10, 8th-03 Hudson v. Bowen , 870 F.2d 1392, 1396 (8th Cir. 1989), §§ 103.1, 1103 Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995), § 604.6 Hudson v. Heckler , 755 F.2d 781, 784-85 (11th Cir. 1985), §§ 206.1, 1505 Huff v. Halter , 169 F. Supp.2d 1318......
-
Table of cases
...F.3d 661 (8th Cir. Sept. 30, 2003), 8th-10, 8th-03 Hudson v. Bowen , 870 F.2d 1392, 1396 (8th Cir. 1989), §§ 103.1, 1103 Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785, 786 (8th Cir. 1995), § 604.6 Hudson v. Heckler , 755 F.2d 781, 784-85 (11th Cir. 1985), §§ 206.1, 1505 Huff v. Halter , 169 F. Supp.2d 1318......