Celentano v. Ryan et al
ORDER - Judge James F. Metcalf's R&R (Doc. 16 ) is accepted. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1 ) is dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 03/12/2018. (KAS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Zachariah William Celentano,
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
Petitioner Zachariah William Celentano was convicted of armed robbery in
Arizona state court on January 15, 2015. Doc. 16 at 1. Petitioner filed a pro se petition
for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on April 10, 2017. Doc. 1.
Respondents filed a response (Doc. 13), and Petitioner filed a reply (Doc. 15). Magistrate
Judge James F. Metcalf issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) that the petition be
denied as untimely filed. Doc. 16. Petitioner filed objections to the R&R (Doc. 17) and
Respondents replied (Doc. 18). The Court will deny the objections and adopt Judge
The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge” in a habeas case.
§ 636(b)(1). The Court must undertake de novo review of those portions of the R&R to
which specific objections are made. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); see also 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The portions of the R&R to which Petitioner does
not specifically object will be adopted without further discussion. See id. The Court will
not review generalized objections, nor undertake a global reevaluation of the merits of
Petitioner’s grounds for relief. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Warling v. Ryan, No.
CV 12-01396-PHX-DGC, 2013 WL 5276367, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2013).
The R&R concludes that the Petition is untimely because Petitioner filed it after
the one-year statute of limitations had expired. Doc. 16 at 4-7. Petitioner’s objections
make various arguments about the merits of his habeas claims, but make no specific
objection to Judge Metcalf’s finding on the timeliness of the petition. See Doc. 17. The
only comment Petitioner makes with respect to Judge Metcalf’s timeliness decision is
that Petitioner should be given the benefit of the doubt. Id. at 3. Because Petitioner has
not made any specific objections to the R&R, the Court will adopt it.1
IT IS ORDERED:
Judge James F. Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 16) is accepted.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is dismissed with
A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal are denied.
The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.
Dated this 12th day of March, 2018.
Although Petitioner does not raise this issue, the Court notes that the R&R
appears to include an inconsequential mathematical error. The R&R notes that the oneyear statute of limitations began to run on the date Petitioner’s judgment became final.
Doc. 16 at 4. Under Arizona rules, this occurred on April 15, 2015, when Petitioner’s
opportunity to seek an “of right” post-conviction proceeding expired. Id. Petitioner
therefore needed to file this Petition before April 15, 2016. The R&R mistakenly
suggests that the limitations period expired on January 15, 2016. Id. at 5. But this
apparent error is immaterial. Petitioner filed his petition on April 10, 2017, well after the
possible one-year anniversaries in January and April 2016.
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?