Islas v. Ryan et al
Filing
23
ORDER re: 20 Report and Recommendation: Magistrate Judge Ferraro's R&R is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED, over Petitioner's objection (Doc. 21 ), as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court. The Petition in this matter (Doc. 1 ) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 8/21/2018. (SIB)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Armando Duarte Islas, Jr.,
No. CV-17-00307-TUC-RCC
Petitioner,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
Charles L Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
14
15
Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro’s Report and
16
Recommendation (“R&R”), wherein he finds that none of Petitioner’s claims were
17
properly exhausted in state court and recommends this Court dismiss his Petition for Writ
18
of Habeus Corpus (“Petition”). Doc. 20. Petitioner filed a timely objection to the R&R
19
(Doc. 21) and Respondents responded thereto (Doc. 22). For the following reasons and
20
after independent review, this Court will adopt the findings and conclusions of the R&R
21
and dismiss the Petition in this matter.
Standard of Review
22
23
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) provides that a party may serve and file
24
specific written objections to a magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.
25
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (emphasis added). The district court, in turn, is obliged to make a
26
de novo determination of any portion of the magistrate’s disposition to which a specific
27
objection is made. Id.
28
Congress created the position of magistrate judges to assist district courts in
1
discharging the heavy workload of the federal judiciary. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S.
2
140, 152 (1985).
3
economy—to permit magistrate judges to hear and resolve matters not objectionable to
4
the parties. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 147–52. However, there would be no efficiency in
5
referring matters to magistrate judges for R&Rs if district courts must subsequently
6
review said matters de novo whenever an objecting party merely repeats arguments
7
rejected by the magistrate. Accordingly, this Court joins with others that have concluded
8
it is appropriate, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), to overruled general objections advanced
9
without specific reference to the subject R&R or its analysis. See Sullivan v. Schiro, 2006
10
An obvious purpose of this authorized delegation was judicial
WL 1516005, *1 (D. Ariz. 2006) (collecting cases).
11
Analysis
12
Here, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to make specific written objections
13
warranting de novo review of all the issues raised and briefs. Rather than pointing to
14
some inaccuracy in the magistrate’s recitation of the Background of this matter or some
15
fault in his legal analysis, Petitioner has instead used his opportunity to object to
16
summarily deny that his claims are procedurally defaulted and to re-urge the substance of
17
those claims. See Doc. 21 at 2-4.
18
While the absence of proper objections does not relieve this Court of its duty to
19
review Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s conclusions of law, Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514,
20
1518 (9th Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77
21
F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996), after independent review, the Court finds that Magistrate
22
Judge Ferraro correctly articulated and applied the law governing procedurally defaulted
23
claims. Furthermore, and on the whole, the Court finds the R&R to be well-reasoned and
24
thorough. As such,
25
IT IS ORDERED:
26
1.
27
over Petitioner’s objection (Doc. 21), as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of
28
this Court.
Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s R&R (Doc. 20) is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED,
-2-
1
2.
The Petition in this matter (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED.
2
3.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this
3
matter.
4
Dated this 21st day of August, 2018.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?