Celaya v. Ryan et al

Filing 34

ORDER United States Magistrate Judge Kimmins' Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28 ) is accepted and adopted. Petitioner's objections are rejected. Petitioner's §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case. Signed by Judge James A Soto on 08/24/2021. (See attached PDF for complete information). (SCA)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

6
Eduardo Vasquez Celaya,

7

Petitioner,

8
9

No. CV 18-288-TUC-JAS (LCK)
ORDER

v.

10

David Shinn, et al.

11

Respondents.

12
13

DISCUSSION

14

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

15

Magistrate Judge Kimmins. The Report and Recommendation recommends denying

16

Petitioner’s § 2254 habeas petition.

17

Recommendation.1

Petitioner filed objections to the Report and

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

1

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

Assuming that there has been no waiver, the Court has conducted a de novo review

15

as to Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after

16

being served with [the Report and Recommendation], any party may serve and file written

17

objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.

18

A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or

19

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of

20

the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

21

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further

22

evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

Report and Recommendation in this case.

27

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

28

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

-2-

1

Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation. See, e.g., United States v.

2

Rodriguez, 888 F.2d 519, 522 (7th Cir. 1989) (“Rodriguez is entitled by statute to de novo

3

review of the subject. Under Raddatz [447 U.S. 667 (1980)] the court may provide this on

4

the record compiled by the magistrate. Rodriguez treats adoption of the magistrate's report

5

as a sign that he has not received his due. Yet we see no reason to infer abdication from

6

adoption. On occasion this court affirms a judgment on the basis of the district court's

7

opinion. Affirming by adoption does not imply that we have neglected our duties; it means,

8

rather, that after independent review we came to the same conclusions as the district judge

9

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

10

judge, after reviewing the record in the light of the objections to the report, reaches the

11

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

12

sparing everyone another round of paper.”); Bratcher v. Bray-Doyle Independent School

13

Dist. No. 42 of Stephens County, Okl., 8 F.3d 722, 724 (10th Cir. 1993) (“De novo review

14

is statutorily and constitutionally required when written objections to a magistrate's report

15

are timely filed with the district court . . . The district court's duty in this regard is satisfied

16

only by considering the actual testimony [or other relevant evidence in the record], and not

17

by merely reviewing the magistrate's report and recommendations . . . On the other hand,

18

we presume the district court knew of these requirements, so the express references to de

19

novo review in its order must be taken to mean it properly considered the pertinent portions

20

of the record, absent some clear indication otherwise . . . Plaintiff contends . . . the district

21

court's [terse] order indicates the exercise of less than de novo review . . . [However,]

22

brevity does not warrant look[ing] behind a district court's express statement that it engaged

23

in a de novo review of the record.”); Murphy v. International Business Machines Corp., 23

24

F.3d 719, 722 (2nd Cir. 1994) (“We . . . reject Murphy's procedural challenges to the

25

granting of summary judgment . . . Murphy's contention that the district judge did not

26

properly consider her objections to the magistrate judge's report . . . lacks merit. The judge's

27

brief order mentioned that objections had been made and overruled. We do not construe

28

the brevity of the order as an indication that the objections were not given due

-3-

1

consideration, especially in light of the correctness of that report and the evident lack of

2

merit in Murphy's objections.”); Gonzales-Perez v. Harper, 241 F.3d 633 (8th Cir. 2001)

3

(“When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the

4

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

5

which requires more than merely reviewing the report and recommendation . . . This court

6

presumes that the district court properly performs its review and will affirm the district

7

court's approval of the magistrate's recommendation absent evidence to the contrary . . .

8

The burden is on the challenger to make a prima facie case that de novo review was not

9

had.”); Brunig v. Clark, 560 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Brunig also claims that the

10

district court judge did not review the magistrate's report de novo . . . There is no evidence

11

that the district court did not conduct a de novo review. Without any evidence to the

12

contrary . . . we will not assume that the district court did not conduct the proper review.”).2

13

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability

14

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). The district court that

15

rendered a judgment denying the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 must either

16

2

17
18
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
recommendations it may in its discretion treat those findings and recommendations as its
own.”).

-4-

1

issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not issue. See id.

2

Additionally, 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the

3

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the

4

certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C.

5

§2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is

6

debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the

7

issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).

8

Upon review of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability,

9

the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not

10

debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings.

11

CONCLUSION

12
13
14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
(1) United States Magistrate Judge Kimmins’ Report and Recommendation (Doc. 28)
is accepted and adopted.

15

(2) Petitioner’s objections are rejected.

16

(3) Petitioner’s §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with

17

prejudice.

18

(4) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue.

19

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

20
21

Dated this 24th day of August, 2021.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-