Teller v. Ryan et al

Filing 14

ORDER AND OPINION the court ACCEPTS the 13 report and recommendation, and DENIES petitioner Teller's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at docket 1. It is FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner Teller failed to make "a substantial showin g of the denial of a constitutional right" and "reasonable jurists could [not] not debate whether the petition should have been resolved in a different manner," the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. If petitioner Teller wishes to appeal, he may request the necessary certificate from the Court of Appeals. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 04/15/11. (ESL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

JEFFERY BRUCE TELLER,
Petitioner,
vs.
CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:09-cv-02211 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Report and Recommendation
at Docket 13]

I. MATTER PRESENTED
At docket 1, petitioner Jeffery Bruce Teller filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. At docket 12, respondents Charles L. Ryan, et
al., filed their response opposing the petition. Petitioner Teller replied at docket 12.
Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin filed his report and recommendation at docket 13. No
objections to the report and recommendation were filed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”1 When reviewing a magistrate

1

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

judge’s report and recommendation in a habeas case, the district court reviews de novo
conclusions of law2 and findings of fact to which parties object.3 The court reviews for
clear error uncontested findings of fact.4
III. BACKGROUND
The court has reviewed the report and recommendation and found that it
accurately summarizes the relevant background and procedural facts of this case.
Moreover, petitioner Teller does not object to any of the magistrate judge’s findings of
fact.5 Accordingly, the court adopts the factual and procedural background as its own.
IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Having carefully reviewed the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
under the standard of review articulated above, the court agrees with the magistrate
judge’s conclusion of law in all material respects. Accordingly, the court ACCEPTS the
report and recommendation at docket 13, and DENIES petitioner Teller’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus at docket 1. It is FURTHER ORDERED that because petitioner
Teller failed to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” and
“reasonable jurists could [not] not debate whether the petition should have been
resolved in a different manner,” the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability

2

Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by
Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996).
3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

Taberer v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992).

5

Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000) (“Failure to object to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation waives all objections to the judge’s findings of fact.”)

-2-

(“COA”).6 If petitioner Teller wishes to appeal, he may request the necessary certificate
from the Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) and Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1.
DATED this 15th day of April 2011.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

-3-