Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00500/USCOURTS-azd-4_16-cv-00500-1/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

Rafael Key,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-16-00500-TUC-RCC

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is Petitioner Rafael Key’s pro se Petition Under 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by A Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) and 

Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 19). For the 

following reasons, the Court shall accept and adopt Magistrate Bowman’s R&R and deny 

Key’s petition.

Background

The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in 

Magistrate Judge Bowman’s R&R. This Court fully incorporates by reference the Factual 

and Procedural Background sections of the R&R into this Order.

Discussion

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 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection 

is filed, the district court need not review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 

Case 4:16-cv-00500-RCC Document 20 Filed 03/09/17 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

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 his 

factual findings are clearly erroneous or his 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).

Here, no objections were filed. After reviewing the R&R, the Court finds that the 

R&R neither contains factual findings that are clearly erroneous nor legal conclusions 

that are contrary to law. Thus, this Court will accept and adopt the R&R. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge 

Bowman’s R&R. Doc. 19. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Key’s petition is denied. Doc. 1. 

Dated this 9th day of March, 2017.

Case 4:16-cv-00500-RCC Document 20 Filed 03/09/17 Page 2 of 2