Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ward v. Ryan, CV-18-00237-TUC-JAS. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20181219960 Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 18, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. SOTO , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman that recommends denying Petitioner's habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. 1 A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. The Court has reviewed t
More

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman that recommends denying Petitioner's habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.1 A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence.

The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Bowman's recommendations are not clearly erroneous and they are adopted. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2008); Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1007 (9th Cir. 2001). Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) Magistrate Judge Bowman's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is accepted and adopted.

(2) The Petition (Doc. 1) is denied as time barred. This matter is dismissed with prejudice.

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

(4) The certificate of appealability is denied.

FootNotes


1. The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer