Ring #131722 v. Ryan et al

Filing 22

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 19 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 20 ) are overruled. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudi ce. The Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma 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. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 3/5/18. (EJA)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Timothy Stuart Ring,

9
10

Petitioner,
v.

11
12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

13
14

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

No. CV-16-04070-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.) The Court has also received Respondents’ Answer (Doc.

17

13), and Petitioner’s Reply. (Doc. 14.)

18

Recommendation (R&R) of United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 19),

19

Petitioner’s timely Objections (Doc. 20), and Respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s

20

Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 21.)

We also have before us the Report and

21

The Petitioner raises seven grounds for relief in his Petition for Writ of Habeas

22

Corpus. (Doc. 1 at 2-39.) Respondents argue two of Petitioner’s claims are procedurally

23

defaulted, three claims fail to state a cognizable claim and that the remaining claims fail

24

on the merits.

25

procedurally defaulted, three grounds failed to state a cognizable claim and that the

26

remaining counts failed on the merits. (Doc. 19 at 33.)

(Doc. 13 at 2-34.)

Judge Burns also concluded two grounds were

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Petitioner has presented the same arguments that he initially made in his Petition

13

for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1.) This Court has, nonetheless, undertaken an

14

extensive review of the sufficiently developed record and the objections to the findings

15

and recommendations in the very detailed R&R, without the need for an evidentiary

16

hearing. After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court

17

reaches the same conclusions reached by Judge Burns. Specifically, the Court finds the

18

Petitioner has procedurally defaulted on Grounds One and Three, that Grounds Two,

19

Four, and Seven fail to state a claim and that Grounds Five and Six fail on the merits.

20

Additionally, Petitioner’s new argument that he did not consent to a Magistrate Judge,

21

lacks merit. (Doc. 20 at 4.)

22
23

Having carefully reviewed the record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is
entitled to habeas relief. The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly,

24

IT IS ORDERED:

25

1.

26

That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is

accepted and adopted by the Court;

27

2.

That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 20) are overruled;

28

3.

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and this
2

1
2

action is dismissed with prejudice;
4.

That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

3

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

4

procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and

5

5.

That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

6

Dated this 5th day of March, 2018.

7
8

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3