Hammar v. Ryan et al
ORDER accepting 14 Magistrate Judge Bade's Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 15 ), is DENIED, Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1 ), is DISMISSED, a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED, and Petitioner may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 4/27/16. (EJA)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Benjamin Scott Hammar,
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge
Bridget Bade, which recommends denying Petitioner Benjamin Hammar’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 14.) It also recommends denying Petitioner a certificate
of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Id. at 21.) The
Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the
R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to
obtain review of the R&R. (Id. at 22 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Neither party filed objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review
the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)
(“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the
subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de
novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”).
The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and agrees with Magistrate Judge Bade’s
recommendations. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in
part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3)
(“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive
further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).
Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Dismiss Case Without Prejudice, or, in the
Alternative Stay in Abeyance. (Doc. 15.) Petitioner requests that the Court permit him to
voluntarily dismiss his case while he exhausts his state court remedies for some of his
claims. (Id. at 6.) However, the R&R recommends dismissing the Petition in part
because Petitioner’s claims are procedurally barred.
Petitioner is unable to return to state court to exhaust his remedies, and his claims fail.
(Id. at 9 (“In summary, Petitioner did not present the federal claims asserted in Grounds
Two, Three (a), and Three (c) to the Arizona Court of Appeals either on direct appeal or
post-conviction review. Those claims are technically exhausted and procedurally barred
because it would be futile for Petitioner to return to the state courts to try to exhaust those
claims.”). The motion is denied.
(Doc. 14 at 9-10.)
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bade’s R&R (Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED,
Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss, (Doc. 15), is DENIED, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED, a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED,
and Petitioner may not proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Clerk shall terminate
Dated this 27th day of April, 2016.
Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge
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?