Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08220/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08220-1/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

Scott Allen Patzke, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-08220-PCT-NVW (ECV)

ORDER

and 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

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

Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss (Doc. 15) 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 9

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner’s time to file objections was subsequently

extended to November 18, 2010. (Doc. 17.) Petitioner filed objections on November 17,

2010. (Doc. 18.) 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the R&R 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 R&R to which specific objections are made). The

Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended

decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's

Case 3:09-cv-08220-NVW Document 27 Filed 02/01/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

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”).

Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error

may not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party

did not file a timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The absence of a timely objection

precludes later assignment of error in this court or in any higher court of the nondispositive rulings of a magistrate judge. Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170,

1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 15) is accepted.

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

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, the Court FINDS: Certificate

of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are Denied. Petitioner

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Rule 11(a),

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 

DATED this 1st day of February, 2011.

Case 3:09-cv-08220-NVW Document 27 Filed 02/01/11 Page 2 of 2