Dennis v. Ryan et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge Fine's Report and Recommendation 18 is accepted and adopted by the Court; the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1 is denied and this action is dism issed with prejudice; a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable; the Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 1/30/17. (REW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Clinton James Dennis,

9
10

Petitioner,
vs.

11
12
13
14

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

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

No. CV-15-01840-PHX-SPL
ORDER

15

Before the Court is Petitioner Clinton James Dennis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

16

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Honorable Deborah F. Fine, United

17

States Magistrate Judge, has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 18),

18

recommending that the petition be denied as time-barred. Petitioner has filed an

19

Objection (Doc. 19) and Declaration (Doc. 20) in response.

20

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

21

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files

22

a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the

23

R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection

24

requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See

25

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. §

26

636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no

27

specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v.

28

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is

1

judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of

2

evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and

3

the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d

4

615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).

5

In his filings, Petitioner does not object to Magistrate Judge’s finding that his

6

petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Nor does he point to any specific flaw in

7

the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, much less makes any apparent reference to the R&R.

8

Rather, in his filings, Petitioner generally contends that due process demands his claims

9

be heard, he recites the facts of his case, and he criticizes the actions of various

10

individuals which he believes led to his convictions. This is insufficient to trigger de novo

11

review of findings in the R&R. See Gutierrez v. Flannican, 2006 WL 2816599, at *2 (D.

12

Ariz. Sept. 29, 2006) (where a Petitioner does not identify which of the Magistrate

13

Judge’s findings he or she specifically disagrees with, the general objections to the R&R

14

“are tantamount to no objection at all.”); Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (no review at all is

15

required for “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Therefore, finding

16

Petitioner has not filed a proper objection, and the Magistrate Judge’s findings and

17

conclusions are well taken, the R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly,

18

IT IS ORDERED:

19

1.

20

accepted and adopted by the Court;
2.

21
22

That Magistrate Judge Fine’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. 1) is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice;
3.

23

That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on

24

appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar

25

and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable; and

26

///

27

///

28

///
2

1

4.

That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

2

Dated this 30th day of January, 2017.

3
4

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

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