Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01209/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01209-1/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 

Guadalupe Chavez-Duarte,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-01209-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before this Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On 

December 9, 2016, the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report 

and Recommendation (R&R) recommending that this Court deny and dismiss the Petition 

because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. 

 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is “clear that 

the district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 

novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 

F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D.Ariz. 2003) (“Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes 

that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, ‘but not 

otherwise.’”); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 

1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court “must review de novo the portions of the 

[Magistrate Judge’s] recommendations to which the parties object.”). District courts are 

Case 2:16-cv-01209-JAT Document 13 Filed 01/31/17 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 

not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of 

the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”). 

 The R&R concludes that, after all statutory tolling, Petitioner’s conviction became 

final on May 1, 2004; thus the one year statute of limitations expired on May 1, 2005. 

Doc. 11 at 4. The R&R then notes that the Petition in this case was filed on April 19, 

2016, almost 11 years late. Id. at 4-5. Finally, the R&R concludes that Petitioner is not 

entitled to equitable tolling. Id. at 5-6. 

 Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. Doc. 12. Petitioner does not make any 

argument in his objections that would show his due diligence or the extraordinary 

circumstances necessary to obtain equitable tolling. Id. Accordingly, reviewing the 

R&R de novo, the Court adopts the conclusion that the Petition in this case is barred by 

the statute of limitations. 

 Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) is accepted and 

adopted. The objections (Doc. 12) are overruled. The Petition is denied and dismissed 

because it is barred by the statute of limitations and the Clerk of the Court shall enter 

judgment accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a 

certificate of appealability because dismissal of the petition is based on a plain procedural 

bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 30th day of January, 2017.

 

 

Case 2:16-cv-01209-JAT Document 13 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 2