Hoffman v. Ryan et al
Filing
36
ORDER ADOPTING 32 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal ar e denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 17 Petitioner's Motion to Grant Access to DVDs and granting 35 Petitioner's Motion Requesting a Ruling on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Clerk shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 12/4/17. (LSP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Michael James Hoffman,
9
10
Petitioner,
v.
11
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al,
Respondents.
13
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-16-03598-PHX-SPL
ORDER
15
The Court has before it Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
16
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), Petitioner’s Motion to Allow Petitioner Access to each DVD
17
in his Trial File (Doc. 17), Respondents’ Answer (Doc. 18), and Petitioner’s Reply in
18
Support of the Petition for Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 25.) We also have before us the Report
19
and Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc.
20
32), Petitioner’s Response to the Report and recommendation1 (Doc. 33), Respondents’
21
Response to the Petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 34),
22
and Petitioner’s Motion Requesting a Ruling on the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
23
(Doc. 35.)
24
Petitioner was indicted May 12, 2012, on seven counts of sexual assault, four
25
counts of kidnapping, two counts of sexual abuse, one count of attempted sexual assault,
26
and one count of public sexual indecency. (Doc. 18, Ex. P.) The charges were based on
27
28
1
The Court considers this document the Petitioner’s Objections.
1
events that occurred between October 2004 and September 2011. (Id.) At trial, four
2
victims testified that the Petitioner forced them into his vehicle and sexually assaulted
3
them. (Id.) The jury convicted the Petitioner of all but one count and the Petitioner was
4
subsequently sentenced to 69 years of imprisonment. (Id.)
5
The Petitioner raised 20 grounds for relief in his Petition for Writ of Habeas
6
Corpus. (Doc. 1.) Upon review of the R&R and the parties’ submissions, the Court will
7
adopt in whole Judge Metcalf’s recommendations and the underlying reasoning. Judge
8
Metcalf correctly concluded the Petitioner’s claims merited no relief and that the Petition
9
for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 32.)
10
In his Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner repeats the same
11
arguments that were laid out in the Petition. (Doc. 1.) Additionally, the Petitioner
12
continues to articulate his version of the facts as he recalls them. (Doc. 33.)
13
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
14
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files
15
a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the
16
R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection
17
requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See
18
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. §
19
636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no
20
specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v.
21
Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is
22
judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of
23
evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and
24
the Court’s decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d
25
615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).
26
The Court finds that although the Petitioner filed objections (Doc. 33), he failed to
27
provide specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R.
28
Nonetheless, the Court has undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently developed
2
1
record and the objections to the findings and recommendations in the very detailed R&R,
2
without the need for an evidentiary hearing.
3
After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches
4
the same conclusions reached by Judge Metcalf. Specifically, the Court finds the claims
5
are not cognizable on habeas and/or are procedurally barred.
6
Having carefully reviewed the record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is
7
entitled to habeas relief. Finding none of Petitioner’s objections have merit, the R&R
8
will be adopted in full. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
9
1.
10
11
That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) is
accepted and adopted by the Court;
12
2.
That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 33) are overruled;
13
3.
That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and this
14
action is dismissed with prejudice;
4.
15
That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis
16
on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain
17
procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable;
5.
19
20
21
That Petitioner’s Motion to Grant Access to DVDs (Doc. 17) is denied as
6.
18
That Petitioner’s Motion Requesting a Ruling on the Petition for Writ of
moot;
Habeas Corpus (Doc. 35) is granted; and
22
7.
That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.
23
Dated this 4th day of December, 2017.
24
25
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
26
27
28
3
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?