Davis v. Arizona, State of et al
Filing
13
ORDER - Magistrate Judge Boyle's R&R (Doc. 12 ) is accepted and adopted as the order of this Court. FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 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. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. See document for further details. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 3/28/2019. (RMV)
1
WO
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10
Orren Alven Davis,
Petitioner,
11
12
ORDER
v.
13
No. CV-17-03685-PHX-DJH
State of Arizona, et al.,
14
Respondents.
15
16
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
17
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) and the Report and Recommendation
18
(“R&R”) (Doc. 12) issued by United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle on
19
July 24, 2018. Petitioner’s Amended Petition raises twelve grounds for relief. (Doc. 5).
20
Judge Boyle concluded, however, that all twelve of the claims raised in the Amended
21
Petition were unexhausted and procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 12 at 9). He further found
22
that Petitioner had failed to demonstrate cause and prejudice to excuse the default. (Id.)
23
As a result, Judge Boyle recommends denying and dismissing the Amended Petition with
24
prejudice. (Id.)
25
Judge Boyle advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and
26
that the failure to timely do so “may result in the acceptance of the Report and
27
Recommendation by the district court without further review. (Doc. 12 at 9) (citing United
28
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner has not filed an
1
objection and the time to do so has expired. Respondents have also not filed an objection.
2
Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and
3
recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (noting that
4
the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), “does not on
5
its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”);
6
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must
7
determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly
8
objected to.”).
9
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed Judge Boyle’s comprehensive and well-
10
reasoned R&R and agrees with its findings and recommendations. The Court will,
11
therefore, accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge
12
of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
13
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).
14
Accordingly,
15
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Boyle’s R&R (Doc. 12) is accepted and
16
adopted as the order of this Court.
17
18
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
20
Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis
21
on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar
22
and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.
23
…
24
…
25
…
26
…
27
…
28
…
-2-
1
2
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action
and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 28th day of March, 2019.
4
5
6
7
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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?