Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02129/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02129-1/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

Patrick G. Martin, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-11-02129-PHX-ROS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s April 24, 2012 Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 13). The R&R recommends the petition for writ of

habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner did not file any objections.

A district judge “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). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendations, the district

court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id.; see also United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 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.”) (internal

quotations and citations omitted).

Case 2:11-cv-02129-ROS Document 14 Filed 05/17/12 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 -

No objections being made, the Court will adopt the Report and Recommendation in

full.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the Petition

(Doc. 1) is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a

plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2012.

Case 2:11-cv-02129-ROS Document 14 Filed 05/17/12 Page 2 of 2