Smith v. Thornell et al

Filing 19

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 14 Report and Recommendation. Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 17 ) are overruled. The Petition (Doc. 1 ) is denied. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal ar e denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because the denial of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. Signed by Judge Dominic W Lanza on 3/26/24. (DXD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Scott O'Brian Smith, Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 Ryan Thornell, et al., 13 No. CV-23-08079-PCT-DWL ORDER Respondents. 14 15 This is a habeas corpus action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 28, 2024, 16 Magistrate Judge Bibles issued a 28-page report and recommendation (“R&R”) concluding 17 that Petitioner’s habeas petition should be denied. (Doc. 14.) Afterward, Petitioner filed 18 a two-page objection to the R&R (Doc. 17) and Respondents filed a response (Doc. 18). 19 Petitioner’s objections implicate 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), which provides that when, 20 as here, a magistrate judge has issued an R&R regarding a dispositive matter and a party 21 has thereafter filed timely written objections, “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo 22 determination of those portions of the [R&R] or specified proposed findings or 23 recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or 24 modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 25 The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge 26 with instructions.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2)-(3). As the 27 Ninth Circuit has explained, “[i]n providing for a de novo determination . . . Congress 28 intended to permit whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial 1 discretion, chose to place on a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations. . . . 2 [D]istrict courts conduct proper de novo review where they state they have done so, even 3 if the order fails to specifically address a party’s objections.” United States v. Ramos, 65 4 F.4th 427, 433 (9th Cir. 2023) (cleaned up). See also id. at 434 (“[T]he district court ha[s] 5 no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection.”). Additionally, district 6 courts are not required to review any portion of an R&R to which no specific objection has 7 been made. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does not appear 8 that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual or legal 9 conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those 10 findings.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he 11 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo 12 if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Thus, district judges need not review an 13 objection to an R&R that is general and non-specific. See, e.g., Warling v. Ryan, 2013 WL 14 5276367, *2 (D. Ariz. 2013) (“Because de novo review of an entire R & R would defeat 15 the efficiencies intended by Congress, a general objection ‘has the same effect as would a 16 failure to object.’”) (citations omitted). 17 Here, even though there is a colorable argument that Petitioner’s objections are 18 insufficient to trigger any need for further review (because they essentially restate 19 arguments that Petitioner previously raised and do not purport to identify specific errors in 20 the R&R’s analysis), the Court has, in an abundance of caution, performed a de novo review 21 of the R&R and fully agrees with its analysis and conclusions. 22 … 23 …. 24 … 25 … 26 … 27 … 28 … -2- 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED that: 3 1. The R&R (Doc. 14) is adopted. 4 2. Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 17) are overruled. 5 3. The petition (Doc. 1) is denied. 6 4. A certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 7 appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 8 constitutional right and because the denial of the petition is justified by a plain procedural 9 bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 10 5. 11 Dated this 26th day of March, 2024. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this action. 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?