Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00401/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00401-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas N Panasewicz,

Petitioner,

v. 

Carla Hacker-Agnew, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-00401-PHX-ROS

ORDER 

Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf recommends Petitioner Thomas N Panasewicz’s 

petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 19.) 

Petitioner filed objections, and Respondents responded. (Docs. 20, 21.)

After issuance of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), Petitioner had fourteen 

days to “file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The Court is required to conduct a de novo review of “any part 

of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(3). But the Court need not conduct such a review of any portion of the R&R where 

there are no objections or where the objections are “general and non-specific.” See, e.g.,

Augustiniak v. Ryan, No. CV-18-03977-PHX-DWL, 2020 WL 1685556, at *2 (D. Ariz. 

Apr. 7, 2020) (“D]istrict judges need not review an objection to an R&R that is general and 

non-specific.”) (citing Warling v. Ryan, No. CV-12-1396-PHX-DGC, 2013 WL 5276367, 

at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2013), Markland v. Ryan, No. CV-14-02563-PHX-SMM, 2018 

WL 1382525, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2018) (“An ineffective general objection has the 

Case 2:19-cv-00401-ROS Document 22 Filed 05/22/20 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

same effect as a failure to object.”)).

Here, Petitioner did not present any specific objections to the R&R, but merely 

complained that following the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations “would have the Court 

leap onto a slippery slope that leads inevitably to totalitarianism”; accused the Magistrate 

Judge, “all of the appointed lawyers,” and “the lower courts” of “disregard for the 

Constitution and Rules of Court”; and concluded “Petitioner is so disgusted by the perfidy 

of James Metcalf’s reasoning that it is impossible to continue.” (Doc. 20 at 2–3.) These 

general and non-specific objections that are without any basis in law do not require the 

Court to independently review the R&R. Therefore, the R&R will be adopted in full.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Ground 1 of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ordered the remainder of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5), including Grounds 2, 3, and 4, is DENIED. The Clerk of Court 

shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED because 

dismissal of portions of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of 

reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable and because the portions of the 

petition not procedurally barred do not make a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.

Dated this 22nd day of May, 2020.

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

Senior United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-00401-ROS Document 22 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 2