Holleman v. Ryan et al

Filing 21

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19 ) is accepted and adopted; Petitioner's §2254 Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice; A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue; and The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 2/2/2016.(DLC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Corey Lamont Holleman,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-15-00119-TUC-JGZ

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United

16

States Magistrate Jacqueline Rateau that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas

17

petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 19.) As thoroughly explained by

18

Magistrate Judge Rateau, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) is a successive

19

petition, which does not allege either a new rule of constitutional law or newly

20

discovered facts that establish actual innocence. No objection to the Report and

21

Recommendation was filed by Petitioner.1

22

The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Rateau’s

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Petitioner filed a surreply on the same day that the
Magistrate Judge filed her Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 20.) In his surreply,
Petitioner contends that he was not provided with the May 15, 2013 order dismissing his
first petition with prejudice. Petitioner further contends that the first petition was
dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, and was “without prejudice.” The Court
has reviewed the surreply, as well as the 2013 Order dismissing Defendant’s previous
petition, and concludes that the Court dismissed the petition with prejudice. (See docs. 18
and 22 in case No. 4:10-CV-00433-JGZ, Holleman v. Hartsuck, et al.) Accordingly, the
arguments contained in Petitioner’s surreply do not undermine the conclusion reached by
the Magistrate Judge in the present Report and Recommendation.

1

recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.

2

72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley

3

v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

5

1.

The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted and adopted;

6

2.

Petitioner’s §2254 Petition (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed

7

with prejudice;

8

3.

A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue; and

9

4.

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file

10

in this matter.

11
12

Dated this 2nd day of February, 2016.

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

-2-