Pittman v. Ryan et al

Filing 19

ORDER: Magistrate Judge Boyle's R&R (Doc. 18 ) is accepted. Petitioner's Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 13 ) is granted as to Ground One and denied as to Ground Two and dismissed with prejudice. The State of Ariz ona is to transfer Petitioner to federal custody for Petitioner to begin serving his five-year sentence in CR-12-20-DLB-2 (Eastern District of Kentucky). The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for six months, absent further request o f the parties. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 1/25/2016. (REK)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Ellis Eugene Pittman,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-01665-PHX-GMS

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of

17

Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle’s Report and

18

Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 13, 18. The R&R recommends that the Court grant

19

Ground One, deny Ground Two and dismiss with prejudice.

20

Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the

21

R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to

22

obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 16 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(b); United States v.

23

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Doc. 18 at 9.

The

24

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to

25

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

26

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is

27

not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must

28

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly

1

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well-

2

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and grants Ground One, denies Ground Two and

3

dismisses the Second Amended Petition with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

4

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the

5

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The

6

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further

7

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

8

IT IS ORDERED:

9

1.

Magistrate Judge Boyle’s R&R (Doc. 18) is accepted.

10

2.

Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 13)

11

is granted as to Ground One and denied as to Ground Two and dismissed with

12

prejudice.

13

3.

The State of Arizona is to transfer Petitioner to federal custody for

14

Petitioner to begin serving his five-year sentence in CR-12-20-DLB-2 (Eastern District of

15

Kentucky).

16
17
18
19
20

4.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for six months, absent

further request of the parties.
5.

The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment

accordingly.
6.

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the

21

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability

22

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

23

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

24

Dated this 25th day of January, 2016.

25
26
27

Honorable G. Murray Snow
United States District Judge

28

-2-