Franks v. Ryan et al

Filing 25

ORDERED that the 24 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in full. Further ordered that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 is denied, and this case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk o f Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 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 Courts ruling debatable. Signed by Judge Rosemary Marquez on 2/16/2017. (BAR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Donnie Ray Franks, Jr.,

10

Petitioner,

11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-01351-TUC-RM

Charles Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

On June 16, 2016, Magistrate Judge Lynnette C. Kimmins issued a Report and

16

Recommendation (Doc. 24) recommending that this Court deny Petitioner’s Petition for

17

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). No objections to the

18

Report and Recommendation were filed.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is

23

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record

24

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

25

advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170

26

F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the

27

district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan,

28

CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for

1

clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation).

2

The Court has reviewed Judge Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation, the

3

Petition, Respondent’s Answer, and the record. The Court finds no error in Judge

4

Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation. Accordingly,

5
6

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 24) is accepted
and adopted in full.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

8

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied, and this case is dismissed with

9

prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this

10

case.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

Dated this 16th day of February, 2017.

16
17
18

Honorable Rosemary Márquez
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-