Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00694/USCOURTS-azd-4_11-cv-00694-1/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

Robert Taylor Harden, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 11-CV-694-TUC-RCC (LAB)

ORDER

Before the Court is the December 17, 2012, Report and Recommendation (R&R) from

Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman (Doc. 19) recommending that this court deny

Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc.

5). Petitioner timely filed objections to the R&R (Doc. 21). For the following reasons, this

court will adopt the R&R. 

I. BACKGROUND

The factual and procedural background in this case is thoroughly detailed in

Magistrate Judge Bowman’s R & R (Doc. 19). This Court fully incorporates by reference

the “Summary of the Case” section of the R & R into this Order. As such, the Court will not

repeat that entire discussion. Rather, the relevant facts and law will be addressed only to the

extent necessary to resolve the specific objections filed by the Petitioner. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The duties of the district court in connection with a R&R are set forth in Rule 72 of

Case 4:11-cv-00694-RCC Document 26 Filed 05/07/13 Page 1 of 4
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 -

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U .S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district court may

“accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1). The Court will not disturb a Magistrate Judge's Order unless his factual findings

are clearly erroneous or his legal conclusions are contrary to law. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

“[T]he magistrate judge's decision ... is entitled to great deference by the district court.”

United States v. Abonce-Barrera, 257 F.3d 959, 969 (9th Cir.2001). Where the parties object

to a R&R, “[a] judge of the [district] court shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the [R&R] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985). When no objection is filed, the district court need not

review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2005);

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). 

III. DISCUSSION

In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Bowman concluded that the alleged procedural errors

cited by Petitioner as the basis for his petitioner do not violate the Constitution, and are

therefore not cognizable through a federal habeas corpus proceeding. The R&R

recommended that this Court dismiss Petitioner’s claims as federal habeas relief is not the

appropriate avenue to redress alleged state post-conviction procedural errors.

Petitioner filed his objection to the R&R on January 30, 2013. In this objection,

Petitioner failed to object to any of the Magistrate’s specific findings or recommendations

in the R&R. Instead, Petitioner restated his arguments concerning his lack of appointed

counsel during the state post-conviction process. Petitioner did not address the issues of

whether state post-conviction procedure is governed or mandated by the federal Constitution.

Moreover, a review of Petitioner’s objections shows that Petitioner failed to identify any

flaws whatsoever in the R&R’s citation to legal authority, discussion of the pertinent facts,

reasoning, and ultimate conclusion regarding Petitioner’s habeas petition. If a party has

objections to a R&R, those specific objections must be filed in writing explaining why the

R&R is flawed. Petitioner’s objections merely incorporate the same arguments he made in

Case 4:11-cv-00694-RCC Document 26 Filed 05/07/13 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

his original petition and reply. Magistrate Judge Bowman has already addressed the issues

raised in the petition. Merely reasserting the grounds of the petition as an objection provides

this Court with no guidance as to what portions of the R&R Petitioner considers to be

incorrect. As such, the Court will deem Petitioner’s objections, which are mere recitations

of earlier arguments, ineffective. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) (stating that a district judge

“shall make a de novo determination . . . of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition

to which specific written objection has been made[.]”) (emphasis added). 

Therefore, to the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the contrary

have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir.1980) (failure to object

to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see also, Advisory Committee Notes

to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th

Cir.1974) (when no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no

clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation). This Court

considers the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned and agrees that Petitioner has failed to

show that the federal Constitution requires the appointment of counsel for state postconviction relief proceedings.

The Court is relieved of any obligation to review a general objection to the R&R. See

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) (“[Section

636(b)(1) ] does not ... require any review at all ... of any issue that is not the subject of an

objection.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo any part of

the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”) (emphasis added).

However, even after conducting an independent, de novo review of the record, the Court

finds that the state post-conviction relief process is not mandated by the federal Constitution.

The Court will adopt the R&R of Magistrate Judge Bowman (Doc. 19). 

IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must

issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.R.App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying a petition made

Case 4:11-cv-00694-RCC Document 26 Filed 05/07/13 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to “either issue a certificate of appealability or state why a

certificate should not issue.” Additionally, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate

may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues satisfy

this showing. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when the

resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve

the issues differently, or if the issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484–85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000). Upon review of the record,

and in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes

that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among

reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Magistrate Judge Bowman’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is hereby

ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law

by this Court.

(2) Denying Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5).

(3) Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) is

dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly and close this case.

(4) This Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability. 

DATED this 6th day of May, 2013.

Case 4:11-cv-00694-RCC Document 26 Filed 05/07/13 Page 4 of 4