Key v. Ryan et al

Filing 20

ORDERED that the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge Bowman's 19 Report and Recommendation. It is further ordered that Petitioner Key's 1 petition is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 3/9/2017. (BAR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Rafael Key,

No. CV-16-00500-TUC-RCC
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Charles Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Rafael Key’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) and

17

Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 19). For the

18

following reasons, the Court shall accept and adopt Magistrate Bowman’s R&R and deny

19

Key’s petition.

20

Background

21

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

22

Magistrate Judge Bowman’s R&R. This Court fully incorporates by reference the Factual

23

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

24

Discussion

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Cir. 2001).

7

Here, no objections were filed. After reviewing the R&R, the Court finds that the

8

R&R neither contains factual findings that are clearly erroneous nor legal conclusions

9

that are contrary to law. Thus, this Court will accept and adopt the R&R.

10

Accordingly,

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge

12

Bowman’s R&R. Doc. 19.

13

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Key’s petition is denied. Doc. 1.

14

Dated this 9th day of March, 2017.

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

-2-