King # 179391 v. Ryan et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ADOPTING 17 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal was justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Senior Judge Stephen M McNamee on 12/14/15. (LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Frederick King, Jr.,
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14

No. CV-14-1229-PHX-SMM (MHB)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
AND ORDER

15

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

16

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 5.) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Michelle H.

17

Burns for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 10.) Magistrate Judge Burns has filed a

18

Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 17.) Petitioner did not file an objection

19

to the Report and Recommendation.

20

STANDARD OF REVIEW

21

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

22

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. Sullivan,

23

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy

24

of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written objections to the

25

Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s

26

recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s

27

factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan,

28

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is

1

a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”

2

Id.
DISCUSSION

3
4

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no

5

Objections having been made by any party, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the

6

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

7

The standard for this Court to issue a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) is whether

8

the applicant has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right .” 28

9

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. “Where a

10

district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to

11

satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists

12

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”

13

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “When the district court denies a habeas

14

petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional

15

claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find

16

it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

17

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

18

procedural ruling.” Id.

19

CONCLUSION

20

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,

21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

22

of the Magistrate Judge that Petitioner’s habeas petition was untimely filed under the

23

AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), and that Petitioner is not

24

entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations period. (Doc. 17.)

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

26

is DENIED, terminating this case. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

27

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to

28

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal was justified by a
-2-

1
2

plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.
DATED this 14th day of December, 2015.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-