Sebastian v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona

Filing 12

ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11 ) is ACCEPTED; accordingly, Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 4 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice, in the event Petitioner files an a ppeal, issuance of a certificate of appealability is denied because denial of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court's procedural ruling debatable. SeeSlack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 5/5/2014. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Karl Douglas Sebastian,
Petitioner,

10
11

vs.

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

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

No. CV 13-602-PHX-JAT
ORDER

15
16

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

17

(“Petition”) (Doc. 4). The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report

18

and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 11) recommending that the Petition be denied.

19

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts

20

the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not

21

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”

22

(emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en

23

banc) (“statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s

24

findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis

25

in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

26

Based on the foregoing,

27

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

28

Recommendation (Doc. 11) is ACCEPTED; accordingly,

1

•

2
3

Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 4) is denied
and dismissed with prejudice,

•

in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of appealability

4

is denied because denial of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and

5

jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

6

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

7

•

the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

8

DATED this 5th day of May, 2014.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-