Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00018/USCOURTS-azd-4_15-cv-00018-1/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

1

The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation.

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to

portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739

(7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Francisco Alberto Berrones, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al. 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 15-18-TUC-JAS (LAB)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States

Magistrate Judge Bowman that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas petition filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.1

 As Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the analysis and

proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Bowman, Petitioner’s objections are rejected

and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.

The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Bowman’s

recommendations are not clearly erroneous and they are adopted. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999);

Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 

Case 4:15-cv-00018-JAS-LAB Document 23 Filed 10/30/15 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 -

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must

issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying the petition

made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of appealability or state why

a certificate should not issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate

may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right." In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues satisfy

this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when the

resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve

the issues differently, or if the issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review of the record in light of the standards for

granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue

as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists and does not

deserve further proceedings. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted and adopted.

(2) Petitioner’s §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

(3) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue.

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.

DATED this 27th day of October, 2015.

Case 4:15-cv-00018-JAS-LAB Document 23 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 2