Beaulieu v. Dannels et al

Filing 15

ORDERED: The 13 Report and Recommendation is adopted. Plaintiff's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case filein this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Raner C Collins on 4/4/2019. (BAR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Hayden A. Beaulieu,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-18-00332-TUC-RCC

Mark Dannels, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15

On March 18, 2019, Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman issued a Report and

16

Recommendation (“R&R”) in which she recommended the Court dismiss Petitioner

17

Hayden A. Beaulieu’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc.

18

13.) The R&R notified the parties they had fourteen (14) days from the date of the R&R to

19

file any objections. No objections have been filed.

20

It appears from the record that prior to the R&R, on January 2, 2019, Petitioner’s

21

mail was returned as undeliverable. (Doc. 7.) Respondents informed the Court of a possible

22

new address. (Doc. 8.) The R&R was not mailed to Respondents’ suggested address;

23

however, Petitioner was initially warned by the Court that it was Petitioner’s responsibility

24

to keep his address current, and that failure to do so may result in dismissal. (Doc. 5 at 2.)

25

The Court does not have an affirmative obligation to locate Plaintiff. See Carey v. King,

26

856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A party, not the district court, bears the burden of

27

keeping the court apprised of any changes to his mailing address.”); see also LRCiv 83.3

28

(plaintiff who is incarcerated must serve notice of change of address within seven days of

1

the date of the change). The Court, therefore, considers this matter despite the

2

undeliverable mail.

3

If neither party objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the

4

District Court is not required to review the magistrate judge’s decision under any specified

5

standard of review. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). However, the statute for

6

review of a magistrate judge’s recommendation “does not preclude further review by the

7

district judge, sua sponte or at the request of a party, under a de novo or any other standard.”

8

Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154.

9

The Court has reviewed and considered the Petition (Doc. 1), Respondents’ Limited

10

Answer (Doc. 9) and exhibits (Docs. 10-12), and the Magistrate’s R&R (Doc. 18)–

11

Petitioner did not file a reply. The Court finds the R&R well–reasoned and agrees with

12

Magistrate Judge Bowman’s conclusions.

13

The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because it does not find that

14

jurists of reason would find the determination debatable. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

15

484 (2000).

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. The R&R is ADOPTED. (Doc. 13.)
2. Plaintiff’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is
DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall docket accordingly and close the case file
in this matter.
3. The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of the R&R and this Order to the address noted
in Respondents Notice of Possible New Address:
Hayden A. Beaulieu
1850 East Wilcox Drive, Room 210
Sierra Vista, Arizona 85635
Dated this 4th day of April, 2019.

26
27
28

-2-