Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01023/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01023-3/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 

Brian Thomas Eftenoff, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, Director of the 

Department of Corrections; The Attorney 

General of the State of Arizona, 

 Respondents.

No. CV-14-01023-PHX-NVW (MHB)

ORDER 

and 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS 

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 47) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that 

the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the 

parties that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 32 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner 

filed objections on December 14, 2015 (Doc. 48). Respondents filed a response to 

Petitioner’s objections on December 28, 2015 (Doc. 50). 

The Court has considered the objections and responses and reviewed the Report 

and Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating 

that the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the 

Case 2:14-cv-01023-NVW Document 51 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 2
‐ 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 

meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 47) is accepted. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order 

denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a Certificate of Appealability 

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

(Petitioner’s Claims 4a, 4c, 7a), procedural default (Claim 8b), or lack of a substantial 

showing of the denial of a constitutional right (Claims 7d, 8a) upon which reasonable 

jurists would disagree. 

 Dated this 25th day of April, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-01023-NVW Document 51 Filed 04/25/16 Page 2 of 2