Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02455/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02455-1/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

Rene Antonio Vera, 

Petitioner, 

v.

McDaniel, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-02455-PHX-NVW (JI)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate

Judge Irwin (Doc. # 21) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied

on Ground Three and dismissed with prejudice on the remaining grounds. The Magistrate

Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 17

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). 

Petitioner now objects (Doc. # 24) to the recommendation that the Grounds other than

Ground Three be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner argues that his

failure to appeal the denial of his state court petition for post-conviction relief should be

excused because he was in lock down and could not prepare an appeal. The objection will

be overruled for two independent reasons. First, Petitioner held back this contention and the

factual basis for it in the proceedings before the Magistrate Judge. He could have filed a

reply to Respondents’ answer, which answer asserted the failure to appeal in the state courts

as a fatal failure to exhaust state court remedies. He did not. The district court need not

Case 2:06-cv-02455-NVW Document 29 Filed 08/21/07 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

consider contentions not first presented to the Magistrate Judge. United States v. Armstrong,

951 F.2d 626, 630 (5th Cir. 1992); Borden v. Secretary of HHS, 836 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1987);

Kirk v. Meyer, 279 F. Supp. 2d 617, 619 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (collecting cases). Those cases deal

with principal claims omitted from the petition and sought to be raised first in the objections

to the report and recommendation. This case deals with a factual contention (supposed

inability to prepare and mail a notice of appeal) not presented to the Magistrate Judge but

which plainly was called for by Respondents’ answer. The purpose of requiring factual

contentions to be presented first to the Magistrate Judge fully applies here.

Second, Petitioner’s new contention fails to show that he could not have filed a notice

of appeal to the Arizona Court of Appeals even while in lock down. His grievances

concerning lock down interfering with his legal work predated the time that he needed to file

a notice of appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of post-conviction relief and relate to his

legal work in general. If Petitioner had attempted to make a specific showing that he could

not file a notice of appeal, it would not have been credible, as the notice of appeal is a onepage document. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.2.

The court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the

court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge's determinations, as supplemented by this order, accepts the recommended

decision within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's

objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error may

not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party did not file

a timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“Within 10 days after being served with a copy of

the magistrate judge’s order, a party may serve and file objections to the order; a party may

not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge’s order to which objection was

Case 2:06-cv-02455-NVW Document 29 Filed 08/21/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

not timely made.”). The absence of a timely objection precludes later assignment of error

in this court or in any higher court of the non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge.

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289

F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. # 21) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1) is denied on Ground Three and dismissed with

prejudice on the remaining grounds.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

DATED this 20th day of August 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02455-NVW Document 29 Filed 08/21/07 Page 3 of 3