Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02578/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02578-1/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 

Christopher Todd Olson, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-02578-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

AND ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge 

Bridget S. Bade for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 7.) On April 2, 2014, the 

Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 20.) To 

date, no objections have been filed. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. 

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the 

service of a copy of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific 

written objections to the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to 

Case 2:12-cv-02578-SMM Document 22 Filed 01/13/15 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 

object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo

review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings and waives all objections to those 

findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure 

to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in considering the 

propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Id. 

DISCUSSION

 Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no 

Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and 

adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

 The standard for this Court to issue a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) is 

whether the applicant has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right .” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing 

required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that 

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “When the district 

court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s 

underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, 

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. 

Case 2:12-cv-02578-SMM Document 22 Filed 01/13/15 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 

CONCLUSION

 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc.20.) 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus is DENIED, terminating this case. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 

accordingly. 

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

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and the dismissal was justified 

by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling 

debatable. 

 DATED this 12th of January, 2015. 

 

Case 2:12-cv-02578-SMM Document 22 Filed 01/13/15 Page 3 of 3