Verdugo v. Ryan et al

Filing 20

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Marco A Verdugo,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-01243-PHX-RM (JR)

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et
al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

On June 23, 2020, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau issued a Report and

16

Recommendation (Doc. 19) recommending that this Court deny Petitioner’s Petition

17

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and Amended Petition

18

(Doc. 9).1 No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed.

19

A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a

20

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

21

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule

22

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is

23

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record

24

in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)

25

advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170

26

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the

27

1

28

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.

1

district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan,

2

CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for

3

clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

4

The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation,

5

the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Rateau’s

6

Report and Recommendation.

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted

9

and adopted in full.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a

11

Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and Amended Petition (Doc. 9) are denied. The Clerk of

12

Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing

14

Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because

15

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel,

16

529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000).

17

Dated this 15th day of October, 2020.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-