Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08244/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08244-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Jose Manuel Pinzon, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-08244-PCT-DJH

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on pro se Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 4) and the Report and 

Recommendation (“R & R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 

12). The R & R includes an accurate and complete recitation of the necessary factual and 

procedural background. (Doc. 12 at 1:21-5:12). The R & R also correctly sets forth the 

legal principles governing the threshold issue of whether a petitioner has exhausted 

available state court remedies. (Id. at 5:13-7:26). After a thorough and sound analysis, 

the Magistrate Judge found that Petitioner’s claims were procedurally barred, and that 

Petitioner did not establish a basis to overcome that bar. The Magistrate Judge thus 

recommends denial of the Petition. Petitioner filed timely objections (Doc. 13). The 

Court now rules as follows. 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

Case 3:14-cv-08244-DJH Document 16 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

I. Standard of Review 

 The Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or 

specified proposed findings or recommendations to which” a Petitioner objects. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (same). 

Conversely, the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not 

the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (emphasis added); 

see also Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Of course, de novo 

review of a R & R is only required when an objection is made to the R & R, [Reyna–

Tapia,] 328 F.3d [at] 1121 . . . (“Neither the Constitution nor the [Federal Magistrates 

Act] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the 

parties themselves accept as correct”)[.]”) Likewise, it is well-settled that “’failure to 

object to a magistrate judge's factual findings waives the right to challenge those 

findings[.]’” Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155, 1159 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Miranda 

v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) 

(footnote omitted)). 

II. Analysis 

 Although designated as “objections,” Petitioner is not actually objecting to any of 

the R & R’s factual findings or legal conclusions. Thus, as to the factual findings, 

Petitioner has waived any objection thereto. See Bastidas, 791 F.3d at 1159 (citations 

omitted). Petitioner’s objections are conspicuously silent on the determinative issue of 

issue of procedural default. In fact, it is readily apparent that, with one exception which 

the Court will address next, Petitioner is simply reasserting most of the grounds for relief 

found in his amended petition. Further, instead of objecting to any aspect of the R & R, 

Petitioner is seeking to have this Court address the merits, despite the Magistrate Judge’s 

findings of procedural default and failure to overcome that bar. Hence, because 

Case 3:14-cv-08244-DJH Document 16 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

Petitioner makes no objections at all to the R & R, this Court is not required to review the 

R & R. Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R & R and agrees with its sounding 

reasoning, findings and recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R & R 

and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, 

reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 

magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 

 The Court recognizes, as just alluded to, that Petitioner’s objections seem to 

include a new claim for habeas relief. Petitioner contends that his “pretrial/trial counsel . 

. . fail[ed] to provide him with a reasonable assessment of the probable outcome of his 

trial[.]” (Doc. 13 at 3). Speculating and with the advantage of hindsight, Petitioner 

further claims that had his counsel provided him with the foregoing, Petitioner “would 

have accepted the State’s plea agreement.” (Id.) (citation omitted). Petitioner’s amended 

petition does include several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, but not this 

particular one. This new claim for habeas relief was, understandably, not addressed in 

the R & R. Because Petitioner is improperly raising this new unexhausted claim in his 

objections, the Court gives no credence to such a claim and adheres to its view that the 

Magistrate Judge correctly recommended denial of this amended petition. 

III. Conclusion 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that Magistrate Judge Bade’s R & R (Doc. 12) 

is accepted and adopted as an Order of this Court. 

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

Corpus (Doc. 4) is DENIED and dismissed with prejudice. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED because the dismissal of the Amended Petition 

is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists could not find the procedural 

ruling debatable. 

. . . . 

Case 3:14-cv-08244-DJH Document 16 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 20th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-08244-DJH Document 16 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 4