Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00560/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00560-1/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

ROGER ANDREW RAMON,

Petitioner, 

vs.

CHARLES L. RYAN, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 09-560-TUC-CKJ (BPV) 

ORDER

On July 23, 2010, Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco issued a Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 19) in which he recommended that the Petition under 28 U.S.C. §

2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by Roger Andrew

Ramon (“Ramon”) on August 17, 2009, be dismissed in its entirety. The magistrate judge

advised the parties that written objections to the Report and Recommendation were to be

filed within fourteen days of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). No objections have been filed within the time provided.

Report and Recommendation

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

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Further, under 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1), if a party makes a timely objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then

this Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

recommendation] to which objection is made.” The statute does not “require [] some lesser

review by [this Court] when no objections are filed.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50,

Case 4:09-cv-00560-CKJ Document 20 Filed 09/07/10 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Rather, this Court is not required to conduct “any

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Id. at 149. 

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

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.”). In other

words, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then this Court may

accept the recommendation without review. See e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d at 1226

(accepting, without review, a magistrate judge's recommendation to which no objection was

filed). 

In this case, Ramon has not filed an objection to the magistrate judge's Report and

Recommendation. Although Ramon has not filed an objection, the Court has reviewed the

Report and Recommendation and finds that it is well-taken. The Court will accept the Report

and Recommendation and dismiss the Petition.

Certificate of Appealability (“COA”)

Rule 11(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, requires that in habeas cases the

“district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order

adverse to the applicant.” Such certificates are required in cases concerning detention arising

“out of process issued by a State court”, or in a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 attacking

a federal criminal judgment or sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Here, the Petition is

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and challenges detention pursuant to a State court

judgment. This Court must determine, therefore, if a COA shall issue.

The standard for issuing a COA is whether the applicant has “made a substantial

Case 4:09-cv-00560-CKJ Document 20 Filed 09/07/10 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “Where a district

court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy §

2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would

find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). “When the district

court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner's

underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that

jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial

of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district

court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.; see also Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d

1143,1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007) (failure to object to magistrate judge’s conclusions does not

automatically waive appellate challenge) In the certificate, the Court must indicate which

specific issues satisfy the showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). 

The magistrate judge determined, and this Court accepted, that (1) the claims set forth

in Ground I regarding his sentence being in violation of the Arizona Revised Statutes are not

amenable to federal review and that Ramon’s reference to the Sixth and Fourteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution does not convert the alleged violations of state

law into federal claims, (2) Ramon’s claim that the sentencing judge failed to give a reason

for imposing consecutive sentences was not exhausted, was procedurally defaulted, (3)

Ramon’s claims that the sentencing judge failed to give specific reasons for imposing a

mitigated sentence consecutive to a presumptive sentence and failed to sentence Ramon

concurrently on two counts which resulted from the same indictment are foreclosed from

federal review by the state’s independent and adequate procedural bar, and (4) Ramon failed

to establish cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice as to Ground I. The

magistrate judge also determined, and this Court accepted, that Ramon’s claim in Ground II

of the Petition that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to correct or modify his

sentences to run concurrently fails to present a cognizable claim for federal habeas review.

Case 4:09-cv-00560-CKJ Document 20 Filed 09/07/10 Page 3 of 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 - 4 -

was not exhausted, and is procedurally defaulted; further, that Ramon has failed to show

cause and prejudice or a fundamental miscarriage of justice as to Ground II. The magistrate

judge also concluded, and this Court accepted, that Ramon has not exhausted his claim that

post-conviction counsel was ineffective, that this claim is procedurally defaulted, and that

Ramon has failed to show cause and prejudice or a miscarriage of justice. Lastly, the

magistrate judge concluded, and this Court accepted, that Ramon has not exhausted his claim

that the state appellate court chose not to consider claims presented in the petition for review,

that this claim is procedurally defaulted, and that Ramon has failed to establish cause and

prejudice or a miscarriage of justice as to Ground IV. 

The Court finds that jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the Petition

stated a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and the Court finds that jurists of

reason would not find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural

ruling. A COA shall not issue as to Ramon’s claims.

Any further request for a COA must be addressed to the Court of Appeals. See Fed.

R.App. P. 22(b); Ninth Circuit R. 22-1.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 19] is ADOPTED. 

2. Ramon’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a

Person in State Custody is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;

3. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and shall then close its file in this

matter, and;.

4. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue in this case.

DATED this 7th day of September, 2010.

Case 4:09-cv-00560-CKJ Document 20 Filed 09/07/10 Page 4 of 4