Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00366/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00366-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nikia Timothy Striet,

Petitioner,

v.

Craig Apker, 

Respondent, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 10-366 TUC DCB

O R D E R

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco, pursuant to the Rules

of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules), Rule (Civil)

72.1(a), and he issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on June 17, 2011. (Doc. 17.) He

recommends dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, seeking relief pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241, as procedurally defaulted. He recommends denying the Petitioner’s Motion for

Summary Judgment as untimely and/or moot. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate

Judge’s R&R as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court and dismisses the

Petition and denies the Motion for Summary Judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R by a Magistrate Judge, are set

forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district

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); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object

to a 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); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objections are filed, the district court does not

Case 4:10-cv-00366-DCB Document 18 Filed 08/26/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

need to review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005);

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc).

The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file written

objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 (party objecting

to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, written objections). No

Objection has been filed.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner challenges the loss of good time credit and commissary restrictions without due

process and the constitutionality of the Bureau of Prison’s (BOP’s) visitation policy. Petitioner,

challenges the manner of his sentence’s execution and brings his action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. 

The Magistrate Judge found the Petitioner failed to timely seek administrative remedies

regarding the challenged disciplinary matters, which involved date-specific allegations, and has

therefore procedurally defaulted his claims. (R&R at 7-8 (citing Nigro v. Sullivan, 40 F.3d

990,993 (9th Cir. 1994); Francis v. Rison, 894 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1990); Martinez

v.Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986); Cannon v. Thomas, 2009 WL259415, *2 n.3

(D.Ariz 2009)). 

The Petitioner admitted that he did not exhaust administrative remedies relating to his

claim that the BOP visitation policy violates the Constitution. The Magistrate Judge found the

Petitioner failed to assert that administrative remedies were either unavailable, futile or the

pursuit of them would cause irreparable harm. Petitioner even failed to allege any facts

establishing a date or time he was denied a visitor pursuant to the BOP policy.

The Magistrate Judge found the Petitioner failed to present any evidence of cause and

prejudice which might excuse a procedural default to waive the default. The Magistrate Judge

gave Petitioner an opportunity to argue cause and prejudice for his lack of exhaustion in any

Objection filed to the R&R, but Petitioner did not file an Objection.

Case 4:10-cv-00366-DCB Document 18 Filed 08/26/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Given that Petitioner’s claims were found to be procedurally defaulted, the Magistrate

Judge recommended the Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment be denied as untimely and

/or procedurally duplicative of the Petition and unnecessary and/or moot.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), this Court makes a de novo determination as to those

portions of the R&R to which there are objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("A judge of the court

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings

and recommendations to which objection is made.") To the extent that no objection has been

made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th

Cir. 1980) (failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see also,

Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court,

501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy

itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation).

While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court

nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law.

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will not ordinarily

waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding waiver)). The Court

finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear error in law or fact. United

States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989). The Court accepts and adopts the

R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated in

the R&R, the Court dismisses the Petition and denies the Motion for Summary Judgment.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. # 17] is adopted as the

opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 15] is

DENIED.

Case 4:10-cv-00366-DCB Document 18 Filed 08/26/11 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

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

accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because the Petitioner did not file an Objection to the

R&R, any appeal is NOT TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH, and Petitioner is denied leave to proceed

in forma pauperis if an appeal is taken.

DATED this 23rd day of August, 2011.

Case 4:10-cv-00366-DCB Document 18 Filed 08/26/11 Page 4 of 4