Huggins v. Ryan et al
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, the Court hereby accepts the 14 Report and Recommendation; the Petition for Habeas Corpus is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice; a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Mr Huggins has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)6 and, given the clear procedural bar to Mr Huggins' petition, any appeal would not be taken in good faith; the Clerk shall enter a final judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Sharon L Gleason on 10/2/14. (REW)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
GLEN ALAN HUGGINS,
Petitioner,
vs.
CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-00490-PHX-SLG
Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS
Before the Court at Docket 1 is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by
Petitioner Glen Alan Huggins pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents Charles L.
Ryan, et al., filed a Limited Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at Docket 9. Mr.
Huggins filed a Reply at Docket 13. On May 7, 2014, at Docket 14, Magistrate Judge
Steven P. Logan issued a Report and Recommendation. After a thoughtful and thorough
analysis, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition be denied and that this
action be dismissed with prejudice. 1 The Magistrate Judge further recommended that a
1
Docket 14 (Report and Recommendation).
Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied.
Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. 2
The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute
provides that a district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings
or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 3 The court is to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge’s] report or specified proposed
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”4 But when no objections are
filed, “[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to
review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as
correct.” 5
There being no objections, and following this Court’s review of the Report and
Recommendation, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Steven P. Logan.
2
It appears that Mr. Huggins did not update his address with the Court, as required by the Court’s
Order. See Docket 3 (Order) at 3 (“Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address
in accordance with Rule 83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. . . . Failure to comply may
result in dismissal of this action.”). The Report and Recommendation was sent to Mr. Huggins at
his address on record in the Court’s file on May 7, 2014, but was returned as undeliverable on
May 12, 2014, with the docket notation that Mr. Huggins was no longer in the custody of the
Arizona Department of Corrections. See Docket 15.
3
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
4
Id.
5
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (“It does not appear that Congress intended to require district court
review of a magistrate’s factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when
neither party objects to those findings.”).
2:13-cv-00490-PHX-SLG, Huggins v. Ryan, et al.
Order Denying Petition for Habeas Corpus
Page 2 of 3
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED and
this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Mr. Huggins has not “made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” as required by 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2) 6 and, given the clear procedural bar to Mr. Huggins’ petition, any appeal would
not be taken in good faith. 7
The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly.
Dated this 2nd day of October, 2014.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (a certificate of appealability may be granted
only if the applicant has made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., a
showing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved
in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
proceed further.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
7
See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
2:13-cv-00490-PHX-SLG, Huggins v. Ryan, et al.
Order Denying Petition for Habeas Corpus
Page 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?