Threats v. Shartle

Filing 44

ORDER ACCEPTING and ADOPTING 37 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION in its entirety. IT IS ORDERED Petitioner's 1 Petition Under 28 USC § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody is denied. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 6/25/21.(BAC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Lonzell J. Threats,

9

Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. 17-542-TUC-JAS (BGM)

J.T. Shartle, Warden

13

Respondent.

14
15

DISCUSSION

16

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

17

Magistrate Judge Macdonald. The Report and Recommendation recommends denying

18

Petitioner’s habeas petition.

19

response to those objections.1

Petitioner filed objections and the Government filed a

20

As a threshold matter, as to any new evidence, arguments, and issues that were not

21

timely and properly raised before United States Magistrate Judge Macdonald, the Court

22

exercises its discretion to not consider those matters and considers them waived. United

23

States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-623 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] district court has discretion,

24

but is not required, to consider evidence presented for the first time in a party's objection

25

to a magistrate judge's recommendation . . . [I]n making a decision on whether to consider

26

newly offered evidence, the district court must . . . exercise its discretion . . . [I]n providing

27

for a de novo determination rather than de novo hearing, Congress intended to permit

28

1

Unless otherwise noted by the Court, internal quotes and citations have been omitted
when citing authority throughout this Order.

1

whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to

2

place on a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations . . . The magistrate

3

judge system was designed to alleviate the workload of district courts . . . To require a

4

district court to consider evidence not previously presented to the magistrate judge would

5

effectively nullify the magistrate judge's consideration of the matter and would not help to

6

relieve the workload of the district court. Systemic efficiencies would be frustrated and the

7

magistrate judge's role reduced to that of a mere dress rehearser if a party were allowed to

8

feint and weave at the initial hearing, and save its knockout punch for the second round . .

9

. Equally important, requiring the district court to hear evidence not previously presented

10

to the magistrate judge might encourage sandbagging. [I]t would be fundamentally unfair

11

to permit a litigant to set its case in motion before the magistrate, wait to see which way

12

the wind was blowing, and—having received an unfavorable recommendation—shift gears

13

before the district judge.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir.

14

2003) (“Finally, it merits re-emphasis that the underlying purpose of the Federal

15

Magistrates Act is to improve the effective administration of justice.”).2

16

As to the objections filed by Petitioner, the Court has conducted a de novo review

17

of the record. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after being served with

18

[the Report and Recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such

19

proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court

20

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

21

findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept,

22

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

23

magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to

24

the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

25

In addition to reviewing the Report and Recommendation and any objections and

26

responsive briefing thereto, the Court’s de novo review of the record includes review of the

27

2

28

Assuming, arguendo, that such matters were not subject to waiver, the Court (in the
alternative) has nonetheless conducted a de novo review, and upon review of the record
and authority herein, rejects these issues and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its
entirety.
-2-

1

record and authority before United States Magistrate Judge Macdonald which led to the

2

Report and Recommendation in this case.

3

Upon de novo review of the record and authority herein, the Court finds Petitioner’s

4

objections to be without merit, rejects those objections, and adopts United States

5

Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. See, e.g.,

6

United States v. Rodriguez, 888 F.2d 519, 522 (7th Cir. 1989) (“Rodriguez is entitled by

7

statute to de novo review of the subject. Under Raddatz [447 U.S. 667 (1980)] the court

8

may provide this on the record compiled by the magistrate. Rodriguez treats adoption of

9

the magistrate's report as a sign that he has not received his due. Yet we see no reason to

10

infer abdication from adoption. On occasion this court affirms a judgment on the basis of

11

the district court's opinion. Affirming by adoption does not imply that we have neglected

12

our duties; it means, rather, that after independent review we came to the same conclusions

13

as the district judge for the reasons that judge gave, rendering further explanation otiose.

14

When the district judge, after reviewing the record in the light of the objections to the

15

report, reaches the magistrate's conclusions for the magistrate's reasons, it makes sense to

16

adopt the report, sparing everyone another round of paper.”); Bratcher v. Bray-Doyle

17

Independent School Dist. No. 42 of Stephens County, Okl., 8 F.3d 722, 724 (10th Cir. 1993)

18

(“De novo review is statutorily and constitutionally required when written objections to a

19

magistrate's report are timely filed with the district court . . . The district court's duty in this

20

regard is satisfied only by considering the actual testimony [or other relevant evidence in

21

the record], and not by merely reviewing the magistrate's report and recommendations . . .

22

On the other hand, we presume the district court knew of these requirements, so the express

23

references to de novo review in its order must be taken to mean it properly considered the

24

pertinent portions of the record, absent some clear indication otherwise . . . Plaintiff

25

contends . . . the district court's [terse] order indicates the exercise of less than de novo

26

review . . . [However,] brevity does not warrant look[ing] behind a district court's express

27

statement that it engaged in a de novo review of the record.”); Murphy v. International

28

Business Machines Corp., 23 F.3d 719, 722 (2nd Cir. 1994) (“We . . . reject Murphy's

-3-

1

procedural challenges to the granting of summary judgment . . . Murphy's contention that

2

the district judge did not properly consider her objections to the magistrate judge's report .

3

. . lacks merit. The judge's brief order mentioned that objections had been made and

4

overruled. We do not construe the brevity of the order as an indication that the objections

5

were not given due consideration, especially in light of the correctness of that report and

6

the evident lack of merit in Murphy's objections.”); Gonzales-Perez v. Harper, 241 F.3d

7

633 (8th Cir. 2001) (“When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and

8

recommendation, the district court is required to make a de novo review of the record

9

related to the objections, which requires more than merely reviewing the report and

10

recommendation . . . This court presumes that the district court properly performs its review

11

and will affirm the district court's approval of the magistrate's recommendation absent

12

evidence to the contrary . . . The burden is on the challenger to make a prima facie case

13

that de novo review was not had.”); Brunig v. Clark, 560 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 2009)

14

(“Brunig also claims that the district court judge did not review the magistrate's report de

15

novo . . . There is no evidence that the district court did not conduct a de novo review.

16

Without any evidence to the contrary . . . we will not assume that the district court did not

17

conduct the proper review.”).3

18

3

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

See also Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 893-894 (7th Cir. 2006) (the district court's
assurance, in a written order, that the court has complied with the de novo review
requirements of the statute in reviewing the magistrate judge's proposed findings and
recommendation is sufficient, in all but the most extraordinary of cases, to resist assault on
appeal; emphasizing that “[i]t is clear that Pinkston's argument in this regard is nothing
more than a collateral attack on the magistrate's reasoning, masquerading as an assault on
the district court's entirely acceptable decision to adopt the magistrate's opinion . . .”);
Garcia v. City of Albuquerque, 232 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2000) (“The district court's order
is terse . . . However, neither 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) nor Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) requires the
district court to make any specific findings; the district court must merely conduct a de
novo review of the record . . . It is common practice among district judges . . . to [issue a
terse order stating that it conducted a de novo review as to objections] . . . and adopt the
magistrate judges' recommended dispositions when they find that magistrate judges have
dealt with the issues fully and accurately and that they could add little of value to that
analysis. We cannot interpret the district court's [terse] statement as establishing that it
failed to perform the required de novo review . . . We hold that although the district court's
decision is terse, this is insufficient to demonstrate that the court failed to review the
magistrate's recommendation de novo.”); Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir.
1995) (“The district court is required to conduct a de novo determination of those portions
of the magistrate judge's report and recommendations to which objections have been filed.
But this de novo determination is not the same as a de novo hearing . . . [I]f following a
review of the record the district court is satisfied with the magistrate judge's findings and
-4-

1
2
3
4
5
6

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) United States Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.
37) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
(2) Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in Federal Custody is denied.

7

(3) This case is dismissed with prejudice.

8

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.

9
10

Dated this 25th day of June, 2021.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

recommendations it may in its discretion treat those findings and recommendations as its
own.”).

-5-