Edwards v. Fischer

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding insufficient “merely perfunctory responses, argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a 5 rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• applying clear error standard to “merely perfunctory responses . . . argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition”
• applying clear error standard to “merely perfunctory responses . . . argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition”
• “In the context of federal habeas review, a petitioner is not permitted to raise an objection to a magistrate judge’s report that was not raised in his original petition.”
• citation ' Plaintiff's name has been partially redacted in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 (c\\(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. omitted
• “[W]here objections are merely perfunctory responses, argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original [motion], reviewing courts should review a report and recommendation for clear error.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).