Verdugo v. Ryan et al
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19 ) is accepted and adopted in full. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and Amended Petition (Doc. 9) are denied. The Clerk of C ourt is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000). Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 10/15/20. (MYE)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Marco A Verdugo,
No. CV-18-01243-PHX-RM (JR)
Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et
On June 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau issued a Report and
Recommendation (Doc. 19) recommending that this Court deny Petitioner’s Petition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and Amended Petition
(Doc. 9).1 No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.
A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a
magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule
72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is
filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170
F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the
Although an amended pleading typically supersedes the original pleading, the Report
and Recommendation considers the claims raised in both the Petition and the Amended
Petition because the Amended Petition—which was filed without objection from
Respondents—appears to supplement rather than displace the original Petition.
district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan,
CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for
clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation,
the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Rateau’s
Report and Recommendation.
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted
and adopted in full.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and Amended Petition (Doc. 9) are denied. The Clerk of
Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because
reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000).
Dated this 15th day of October, 2020.
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?