Martin v. Ryan et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 and the Petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Chief Judge Roslyn O Silver on 5/16/12. (DMT)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Patrick G. Martin,
Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-11-02129-PHX-ROS
ORDER

15
16
17

Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s April 24, 2012 Report and

18

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 13). The R&R recommends the petition for writ of

19

habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner did not file any objections.

20

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

21

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party has

22

filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendations, the district

23

court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id.; see also United States v. Reyna-

24

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

25

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

26

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, but not otherwise.”) (internal

27

quotations and citations omitted).

28

1
2

No objections being made, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in
full.

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Petition

5

(Doc. 1) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in

7

forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a

8

plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

9

DATED this 16th day of May, 2012.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-