Alberto Cruz v. Bob Marshall
673 F. App'x 296
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Alberto Cruz, a North Carolina state prisoner, pled guilty in 2011 to multiple drug offenses and received a 175–219 month sentence; his plea included a waiver of direct appeal.
- In March 2013 Cruz filed a state Motion for Appropriate Relief (MAR) raising five claims: Vienna Convention/consular access, involuntary plea, ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC), sentencing error, and a Brady claim regarding an undisclosed fingerprint report.
- After state courts denied relief, Cruz filed a § 2254 habeas petition in federal district court in December 2013 raising the same five claims; the State moved to dismiss as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d).
- The magistrate judge’s Report & Recommendation (R&R) found several claims untimely, concluding Cruz failed to allege dates when he learned facts triggering the Brady and IAC claims and thus could not invoke § 2244(d)(1)(D).
- Cruz filed timely objections to the R&R supplying the omitted dates (receipt of discovery on or about Jan. 15, 2013 for the fingerprint report; receipt of his file from counsel on or about Mar. 1, 2013 for IAC).
- The district court adopted the R&R without explaining why Cruz’s newly supplied dates did not cure the magistrate’s timeliness grounds; the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court failed to give the required de novo, reasoned review of objections that added new information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brady and IAC claims were timely under § 2244(d)(1)(D) | Cruz argued the limitations period is measured from when he learned the factual predicate: he learned of the fingerprint report ~Jan 15, 2013 and of counsel’s failures ~Mar 1, 2013, so his Dec 2013 § 2254 was timely | State argued the petition was untimely because Cruz did not plead when he discovered these facts and thus could not rely on § 2244(d)(1)(D) | Vacated and remanded: district court failed to perform de novo review and explain why the newly supplied dates did not make the claims timely; further proceedings required |
| Whether district court satisfied its duty when objections added new facts | Cruz argued that when objections supply new dates the district court must independently assess and explain its ruling | State urged deference to the magistrate’s R&R and adoption without extended explanation | Held for Cruz: when new information is raised in objections the district court must provide an independent, specific rationale permitting meaningful appellate review |
| Adequacy of district court’s explanation adopting R&R | Cruz contended the district court’s single-sentence adoption was insufficient to permit appellate review | State maintained brief adoption was permissible | Held: insufficient—court must give tailored reasoning when objections present new evidence/arguments |
| Standard of review for R&R objections | Cruz: de novo review is required for objected-to portions, particularly when objections add facts | State: adoption without detailed commentary permissible in some circumstances | Held: de novo review required and explanation necessary where objections introduce new, case-dispositive information |
Key Cases Cited
- Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (absent objection, no detailed explanation required for adopting an R&R)
- Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44 (4th Cir. 1982) (district court must provide reasoning tailored to objections presenting new arguments or evidence)
- United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2009) (district court must provide specific explanation to permit meaningful appellate review)
- Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 1996) (reasoned basis required for district court decisions to permit appellate review)
- Stone v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178 (4th Cir. 1988) (procedural safeguards and reasons required for meaningful review)