Joyner #144698 v. Shinn et al

Filing 21

ORDER: The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 14 is accepted and adopted by the Court. Petitioner's Objections 19 are overruled. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is denied, and this action is dismissed with prejudice . A Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appear are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 4/15/2024. (REK)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Mark A. Joyner,

9
10

Petitioner,
v.

11
12

David Shinn, et al.,
Respondents.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 23-01196-PHX-SPL
ORDER

15

The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

16

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), the Limited Answer from the Respondents, (Doc. 10) and a

17

Reply from the Petitioner. (Doc. 11) Additionally, the Report and Recommendation of the

18

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 14), and the Petitioner’s Objections, (Doc. 19) have also been

19

considered.

20

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

21

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a

22

timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R

23

that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires

24

specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United

25

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It

26

follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific

27

objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474

28

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial

1

economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or

2

arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s

3

decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622

4

(9th Cir. 2000).

5

The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently

6

developed record. The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have

7

also been thoroughly considered.

8

After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches

9

the same conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. The R&R will be adopted in full.

10

Accordingly,

11

IT IS ORDERED:

12

1.

13

That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is

accepted and adopted by the Court.

14

2.

That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 19) are overruled.

15

3.

That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied, and this

16

action is dismissed with prejudice.
4.

17

That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

18

on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural

19

bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and
5.

20
21
22

That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment according and terminate this

action.
Dated this 15th day of April 2024.

23
24

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2