Vargas v. Ryan et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is Ordered Magistrate Judge Rateau's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15 ) is accepted and adopted. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 3/25/2015. (MFR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Roberto Vargas, No. CV-12-00772-TUC-RM Petitioner, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) issued by 16 Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge 17 Rateau recommends denying Petitioner Robert Vargas’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 18 Corpus (Doc. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 On December 12, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 16) 20 to file objections to Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation. The Court granted the 21 Motion on December 17, 2014, and ordered that Petitioner’s objections be filed no later 22 than February 13, 2015 (see Doc. 17). A review of the docket shows that, to date, 23 Petitioner has not filed objections to Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation. 24 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 25 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 26 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing 27 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The advisory committee notes to Rule 28 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 1 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 2 in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. See also Prior v. Ryan, 3 2012 WL 1344286, *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error unobjected-to 4 portions of Report and Recommendation on § 2254 petition); Johnson v. Zema Sys. 5 Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is 6 made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”). 7 The Court has reviewed the record and finds no error in Judge Rateau’s thorough 8 and carefully reasoned Report and Recommendation. 9 Recommendation will be adopted in full and Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition will be denied. Accordingly, the Report and 10 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court’s judgment, a certificate of appealability 11 must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). A certificate may issue 12 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 13 right.” 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific 14 issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made if 15 “reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a 16 different manner,” of if “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to 17 proceed further.” 18 quotation omitted). Upon review of the record in light of the standards for granting a 19 certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the 20 resolution of the Petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve 21 further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (internal 22 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 23 1. Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted 24 and adopted. 25 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. 26 3. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 27 judgment accordingly. 28 .... -2- 1 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 2 Dated this 25th day of March, 2015. 3 4 5 Honorable Rosemary Márquez United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 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?