Blaise v. Ryan et al
Filing
20
ORDER ACCEPTING 19 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. The Clerk shall enter judgment denying petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1 ). The Clerk shall terminate this case. Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order denying Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court FINDS: Certificate of Appealability and leav e to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of Grounds One (f) and (g), Grounds Three (b)-(e), Ground Four, and Ground Five is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in his remaining claims for relief. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 10/20/14. (LSP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Kevin Rochon Blaise,
Petitioner,
10
11
v.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
No. CV-13-001483-PHX-NVW
ORDER
AND
DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF
APEALABILITY
Respondents.
14
15
Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of
16
Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 19) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
17
Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that
18
the Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen
19
days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 49.) No objections were filed.
20
Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the
21
Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);
23
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any
24
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). The absence of a
25
timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the
26
rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A
27
party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a
28
copy [of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not
1
timely objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir.
2
1996); Phillips v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).
3
Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and
4
finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28
5
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
6
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).
7
8
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (Doc. 19) is accepted.
9
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying
10
petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc.
11
1). The Clerk shall terminate this case.
12
Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order
13
denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court FINDS: Certificate
14
of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because
15
the dismissal of Grounds One (f) and (g), Grounds Three (b)-(e), Ground Four, and
16
Ground Five is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find
17
the procedural ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial
18
showing of the denial of a constitutional right in his remaining claims for relief.
19
Dated this 20th day of October, 2014.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
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?