Brown v. Lake

Filing 14

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12 ) is hereby accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) is denied; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed; the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment according. A certificate of appealability shall not issue. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 9/1/2016. (See attached PDF for complete information)(DLC)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Robbin Shea Brown, Petitioner, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-16-026-TUC-FRZ S. Lake, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation of the 16 Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of 17 Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Robbin Shea Brown pro se − in which Petitioner 18 challenges the loss of 52 days of good-time credits following disciplinary proceeding 19 while incarcerated − be denied. 20 This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b); Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and LRCiv 72.1 and 22 72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of 23 Arizona, for further proceedings and Report and Recommendation. 24 Magistrate Judge Leslie Ann Bowman issued her Report and Recommendation 25 (Doc. 12), recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the 26 record, enter an order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus based on the merits 27 of the claim. The Report and Recommendation includes a thorough analysis on the 28 merits of the claim presented. 1 No objections were filed. 2 Upon consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent’s answer 3 and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds, having 4 made a full and independent review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), that the petition 5 shall be denied on the merits. 6 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court’s judgment, a certificate of appealability 7 must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b)(1). A certificate may issue 8 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 9 right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made if “reasonable jurists 10 could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner,” 11 or if “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 12 Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation omitted). 13 Upon review of the record − in light of the standards for granting a certificate of 14 appealability − the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue; as the resolution of 15 the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further 16 proceedings. Accordingly, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is hereby accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed; the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment according; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a certificate of appealability shall not issue. 24 25 Dated this 1st day of September, 2016. 26 Honorable Frank R. Zapata Senior United States District Judge 27 28 -2-

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?