Trevizo v. Ryan et al

Filing 17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 13 . It is ordered that Petitioner Jesus J. Trevizo's pro se Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by A Person in State Custody is denied. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 3/1/17. (KAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Jesus J Trevizo,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-14-01794-TUC-RCC

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Jesus J. Trevizo’s pro se Petition Under 28

16

U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by A Person in State Custody (Doc. 1),

17

Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc.

18

13), Petitioner’s objections to the R&R (Doc. 14) and Respondent’s response (Doc. 15).

19

For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall accept and adopt Magistrate Judge

20

Macdonald’s R&R and deny Trevizo’s Petition.

21

I.

22

The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in Magistrate

23

Judge Macdonald’s R&R. This Court fully incorporates by reference the Factual and

24

Procedural Background sections of the R&R into this Order.

25

II.

Background

Discussion

26

Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a

27

de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is made.” 28

28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection

1

is filed, the district court need not review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d

2

992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22

3

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless his

4

factual findings are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28

5

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge’s decision . . . is entitled to great

6

deference by the district court.” United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th

7

Cir. 2001). A failure to raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s

8

findings of fact. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object

9

to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety

10

of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Federal Rule of

11

Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) requires “specific written objections to the proposed findings

12

and recommendations.” (emphasis added).

13

Here, Petitioner makes skeletal allegations that he: (1) was denied access to an

14

attorney or legal material after he was convicted; (2) exhausted state remedies; (3) was

15

not procedurally barred; and (4) suffered a Fourth Amendment violation because the

16

warrant listed the wrong address. Petitioner’s objections are ineffective general

17

objections because he does not indicate when or how these allegations occurred. A

18

general objection “has the same effect as would a failure to object.” Howard v. Sec'y of

19

HHS, 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991). Thus, Petitioner’s objections are overruled.

20

Furthermore, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s R&R because the factual

21

findings are not clearly erroneous and his legal conclusions are not contrary to the law.

22

…

23

…

24

…

25

…

26

…

27

…

28

…

-2-

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner Jesus J. Trevizo’s pro se Petition

3

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by A Person in State Custody is

4

denied. Doc. 1.

5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald’s
Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted. Doc. 13.

7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this
case.
Dated this 1st day of March, 2017.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-