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)

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-