Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00739/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00739-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Noelle Susanne Widder, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-14-00739-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 

Judge Eileen S. Willett (Doc. 17) (“R & R”) recommending that the Court deny and 

dismiss with prejudice Petitioner Noelle Widder’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(Doc. 1). No objection to the R & R has been filed and the time to so file has expired. 

 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 

timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court must “make 

a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). But where a party fails to object, the Court is 

not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). 

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 

magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See 

United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.2003) (disregarding the standard of 

Case 2:14-cv-00739-JJT Document 18 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 

1226 (D.Ariz.2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the 

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection.”). Thus, in this matter the Court may accept the recommendation without 

review. Even on a de novo review of Judge Willett’s Cobb's R & R, however, the Court 

finds good cause to adopt it here. 

 Petitioner’s judgment became final, at the very latest, at the conclusion of direct 

review of her conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Under Arizona law, where a 

defendant was convicted by plea rather than at trial, that direct review is provided in the 

form of an “of-right” petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32 of the 

Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. Because Petitioner was resentenced in the 

underlying criminal matter after her first Rule 32 proceeding, she was entitled to a second 

Rule 32 “of-right” proceeding. State v. Cleere, 138 P.3d 1181, 1184 n.2 (Ariz. Ct. App. 

2006) (“Although this review relates to Cleere’s second Rule 32 petition, that petition 

was “of right” because it followed a conviction pursuant to a plea agreement and the trial 

court’s resentencing. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1.”) It was therefore upon the conclusion of 

her second Rule 32 proceeding that Petitioner’s conviction became final for purposes of 

AEDPA and its one-year statute of limitation began to run. Summers v. Schriro, 481 F.3d 

710, 711, 716–17 (9th Cir. 2007). 

 The state trial court denied relief on Petitioner’s second Rule 32 of-right PCR 

notice no later than November 9, 2011. Petitioner thereafter had 35 days, or until 

December 14, 2011, to seek review of that denial in the Arizona Court of Appeals. She 

did not do so, and so her conviction became final on December 15, 2011 for purposes of 

AEDPA. Petitioner therefore had until no later than December 14, 2012 to file her 

petition for habeas review. She did not file her petition until April 9, 2014. The Petition is 

time-barred under the one-year statute of limitations set forth in the Anti-Terrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1214. Accordingly, 

Case 2:14-cv-00739-JJT Document 18 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 IT IS ORDERED adopting Magistrate Judge Willett’s R&R (Doc. 17) in its 

entirety and incorporating same into this Order. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and dismissing this matter with prejudice. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in this matter because the dismissal of the instant 

Petition is justified by a plane procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the 

procedural ruling debatable. 

 Dated this 26th day of October, 2015. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-00739-JJT Document 18 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 3