Moreno v. Ryan et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING 18 Magistrate Judge Burns' Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 9 ), is DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in for ma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Clerk shall terminate thiscase. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 12/27/16. (LSP)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Angel James Moreno,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-01698-PHX-DLR

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

Before the Court is Petitioner Angel James Moreno’s Amended Petition for Writ

17

of Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and

18

Recommendation (R&R). (Docs. 9, 18.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny the

19

Petition. (Doc. 18 at 14.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

20

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could

21

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. (Id. at 14-15 (citing

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).)

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R, (Doc. 18), is ACCEPTED.

7

Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 9), is DENIED and

8

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

9

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

10

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is

11

justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling

12

debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

13

constitutional right.

14
15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this
case.
Dated this 27th day of December, 2016.

17
18
19
20
21

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-