Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01787/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01787-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Maximiliano Serrano Garcia,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-01787-PHX-JJT

ORDER 

 At issue are Petitioner Maximiliano Serrano Garcia's pro se Amended Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 8) (“Petition”), and 

Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’s Report and Recommendation (R & R) (Doc. 18), 

regarding that Petition. The parties filed no objections to Judge Burns’s R & R; the Court 

thus accepts and adopts the R & R as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this 

Court and denies the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

 The events and posture of this case are thoroughly detailed in the R & R, and this 

Court fully incorporates by reference the “Factual & Procedural Background” section of 

the R & R into this Order. 

 When presented with a magistrate judge’s R&R, the district court may “accept, 

reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the 

matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). Where the parties object to an R & R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall 

make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R & R] to which objection is 

made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). 

Case 2:13-cv-01787-JJT Document 19 Filed 12/10/14 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 

When no objection is filed, the district court need not review the R & R de novo. Wang v. 

Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n.13 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121–22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

 The Court will not disturb a magistrate judge’s order unless her factual findings 

are clearly erroneous or her legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(A). “[T]he magistrate judge's decision ... is entitled to great deference by the 

district court.” United States v. Abonce–Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Failure to raise an objection waives all objections to the magistrate judge’s findings of 

fact, and failure to object to a magistrate judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in 

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Turner v. Duncan, 158 

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citations omitted). 

 As the parties have not objected to the R & R, the Court is relieved of its 

obligation to review it. See Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (“[Section 636(b)(1) ] does not ... 

require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna–

Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121. Nonetheless, this Court has reviewed the R&R and the record de 

novo and concludes that the R & R is thorough and well-reasoned. It correctly concludes 

that Grounds One and Four of the Petition are procedurally defaulted and barred from 

review; Ground Two lacks merit; and Ground Three presents a claim not cognizable on 

federal habeas corpus review. The Court therefore adopts the R & R. 

 IT IS ORDERED accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Burns’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 18) as this Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (Doc. 8) for the following reasons: Grounds One and Four are procedurally 

defaulted and barred from habeas corpus review; Ground Two lacks merit; and Ground 

Three presents a claim not cognizable on federal habeas corpus review. 

// 

// 

Case 2:13-cv-01787-JJT Document 19 Filed 12/10/14 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 FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, that should Petitioner file an appeal, the Court declines to issue a 

certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling 

debatable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 

 Dated this 10th day of December, 2014. 

 

 Honorable John J. Tuchi 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-01787-JJT Document 19 Filed 12/10/14 Page 3 of 3