Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01221/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01221-2/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

Adam Alcantar, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-01221-PHX-NVW (MHB)

ORDER 

By prior order of June 3, 2015, this Court accepted the Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 14) issued 

April 30, 2015, 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 and 

dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 12 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No objection had been filed. 

Judgment was entered in favor of Respondent. (Doc. 16.) 

On June 8, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen (Doc. 17) on the basis that 

he had not received the Report and Recommendation. By order of June 16, 2015, the 

Court allowed Petitioner to file late Objections, which he did file on July 9, 2015. (Doc. 

19.) The Court grants Petitioner’s Motion to Reopen and treats those Objections as 

having been timely filed. 

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 

Case 2:14-cv-01221-NVW Document 21 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

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, 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”). 

On July 9, 2015, Petitioner also filed a Motion for Evidentiary Hearing. (Doc. 

20.) That Motion is untimely, coming as it does in an objection to a Report and 

Recommendation at the conclusion of the case. In any event, Petitioner shows no basis 

for further evidentiary hearing beyond the record in the state court. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the order (Doc. 15) and Judgment (Doc. 16) 

of June 3, 2015, are set aside. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing 

(Doc. 20) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 14) is accepted and Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 19) are 

overruled. 

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

and dismissing petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order 

denying Petitioner’s Petition and Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the 

Court FINDS: Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:14-cv-01221-NVW Document 21 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

appeal are denied because dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar 

and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable. 

 Dated this 18th day of August, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:14-cv-01221-NVW Document 21 Filed 08/18/15 Page 3 of 3