Coghill v. Ryan et al

Filing 19

ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendations as the opinion of the Court. The 6 Amended Petition is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgmentaccordingly. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. Signed by Senior Judge David C Bury on 10/7/2015. (KEP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
James Prentiss Coghill,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
)
)
Respondents,
)
_______________________________________)

CV 13-268 TUC DCB
ORDER

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau, pursuant to Rules
of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules), Rule (Civil)
72.1(a). She issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on August 19, 2015. (R&R (Doc.
18)). She recommends that the Petition be dismissed because his claims were procedurally
defaulted in the state courts and federal review is, accordingly, precluded.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R of a Magistrate Judge, are set
forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district
court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made
by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object
to a R&R, “‘[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those portions

24

of the [R&R] to which objection is made.’” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985)
25

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When no objections are filed, the district court does not need
26
27
28

to review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). To the extent that no
objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628

1 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on
2 appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United
th
3 States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9 Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court

4 need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
5 recommendation).
6

The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file written

7 objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 (party objecting
8 to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, written objections). To
9 date, no objections have been filed.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

10
11

The Honorable Jacqueline M. Rateau did an exceptional job of explaining the doctrines

12 of exhaustion and procedural default. This Court can add nothing to her explanation of the law
13 and her application of the law to the facts of this Petition. As she noted, Petitioner’s claims were
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

raised in the state courts, pursuant to his Post Conviction Relief petition, and have been found
by the state court to be procedurally defaulted. Therefore, Petitioner’s claims are precluded from
federal review because they have been denied under independent and adequate state procedural
grounds.
While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court
nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law.
Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,
455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v.
Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will not ordinarily
waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding waiver)). The Court
finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear error in law or fact. See

24

United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (United States v. Remsing, 874
25

F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as providing for district court
26
27

to reconsider matters delegated to magistrate judge when there is clear error or recommendation
is contrary to law). The Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant

28
-2-

1 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court denies the Amended
2 Petition.
3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is adopted as the

5 opinion of the Court.
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition (Doc. 6) is DENIED.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

8 accordingly.
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court

10 declines to issue a certificate of appealability, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
11 Section 2254 cases because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling
12 debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
13

DATED this 7th day of October, 2015.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-