Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00176/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00176-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

John Calvin Neuendorf, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-00176-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

issued by United States Magistrate David K. Duncan (Doc. 45). Since the filing of the R 

& R, Petitioner has filed a Motion for "Order of Enforcement Habeas Corpus" (Doc. 48) 

and, most recently, a Motion for Default (Doc. 49). 

 The Petitioner, appearing pro se, asserts four grounds for relief in his habeas 

petition: "(1) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel, (2) his sentence violated 

due process and the Eighth Amendment, (3) his plea was not knowingly or intelligently 

made, and (4) the State’s failure to turn over impeachment evidence violated due 

process." R & R (Doc. 45) at 4:4-7 (citation omitted). Respondents argued that the 

Petition was untimely and that Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling. 

 Agreeing, the Magistrate Judge cogently explained why none of Petitioner's 

"filings tolled any time and so his one year timeframe expired and, once expired, it could 

not be revived by subsequent filings." R & R (Doc. 45) at 5:16-17 (citation omitted). 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 51 Filed 08/19/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Likewise, the Magistrate Judge soundly reasoned that Petitioner was not entitled to 

equitable tolling. (See id. at 5:20-6:9). Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended 

denial of this Petition and dismissal with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge further 

recommended "that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar 

and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable." (Id. at 6:12-15) (emphasis 

omitted). 

 The R & R expressly informed the parties that they were entitled to "file specific 

written objections with the Court." R & R (Doc. 45) at 6:20 (citations omitted). 

Concluding, the R & R also informed the parties that "[f]ailure timely to file objections to 

any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a 

party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered 

pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation." (Id. at 5:26-7:1) (citation omitted). 

 On May 18, 2015, Petitioner filed a document entitled "Motion: to Reply 

'Redacted Filing' Only for the EM/ECF Help Desk" (Doc. 47), which the Court is 

construing as Petitioner's timely objections to the R & R. Petitioner has not raised any 

objections whatsoever to the R & R itself though. Petitioner does not object to any of the 

R & R's factual findings. Nor does Petitioner object to the R & R's legal conclusions that 

his petition was untimely and he is not entitled to equitable tolling. Instead, Petitioner 

devotes his "objections" to reasserting the merits of his petition, focusing primarily upon 

his alleged ineffective assistance of a counsel claim. 

 The relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), 

“does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989); see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted) ("Neither the Constitution 

nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations 

that the parties themselves accept as correct."). Conversely, a "district judge must

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 51 Filed 08/19/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

(emphasis added) ("A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those 

portions of the report . . . or recommendations to which objection is made.") Because 

Petitioner did not objection to any aspect of the R & R, this Court did not engage in a de 

novo review. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R & R and agrees with its 

reasoning and recommendation. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R, and deny 

and dismiss with prejudice this petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) 

(same). 

 In light of the foregoing, the Court denies as moot Petitioner's motion for 

enforcement (Doc. 48) and his motion for default (Doc. 49). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Duncan's R&R (Doc. 45) is accepted 

and adopted as the order of this Court. 

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 

of a constitutional right. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for "Order of Enforcement 

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 48) is denied with prejudice. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Default (Doc. 49) is 

denied with prejudice. 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 51 Filed 08/19/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 19th day of August, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-00176-DJH Document 51 Filed 08/19/15 Page 4 of 4