Warner v. Ryan et al

Filing 14

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTED IN FULL 13 Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro's Report and Recommendation. Petitioner Joshua Matthew Warner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 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. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 5/31/2019. (MCO)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Joshua Matthew Warner,

10

Petitioner,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-01538-PHX-RM

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro’s Report and

16

Recommendation (Doc. 13) on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

17

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). Based upon his review of the Petition, and Respondent’s

18

Limited Answer (Doc. 8), Judge Ferraro recommends dismissing the Petition. Neither party

19

has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time for doing so has

20

expired.

21

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

22

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

23

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 72(b)

24

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is filed, the

25

court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to

26

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

27

committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734,

28

739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the district court

1

judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, CV 10-225-TUC-

2

RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error

3

unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

4

The Court has reviewed Judge D. Thomas Ferraro’s Report and Recommendation,

5

the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Judge D. Thomas Ferraro’s

6

Report and Recommendation. Accordingly,

7
8

IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 13) is accepted and
adopted in full.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28

10

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment

11

accordingly and close this case.

12

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

13

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

14

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529

15

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

16

Dated this 31st day of May, 2019.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-