Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08009/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08009-1/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 

Matthew Trey Calhoun, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al. 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-08009-PCT-NVW

ORDER 

AND 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 12) 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 dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 

they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at P. 9 Ln.22 (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)). Respondents filed objections on July 2, 2013 (Doc. 13). Petitioner has 

filed no objections. 

The court has considered Respondents’ 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 

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 

Respondent’s Objections and sustains Respondents’ 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”). The R&R erroneously 

concludes that Petitioner’s tile to file this petition was tolled for five days and expired on 

Case 3:13-cv-08009-NVW Document 14 Filed 07/10/13 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 

January 17, 2000. In truth, there was no tolling for five days, and the time expired on 

January 11, 2000. This error is of no consequence for the final conclusion and 

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge’s determinations and 

recommendations are otherwise accepted within the meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 12) is modified to delete the sentence which reads: “Thus, 

Petitioner’s statute of limitations was tolled for five days, extending his one year from 

January 11, 2000 through Monday, January 17.2000.” (Doc. 12 at 6, lns.11-13.) As thus 

modified, the R&R (Doc. 12) is accepted. 

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

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 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a Certificate of Appealability 

and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied. 

Dated this 10th day of July, 2013. 

Case 3:13-cv-08009-NVW Document 14 Filed 07/10/13 Page 2 of 2