Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02011/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02011-2/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Darnell Cain, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-13-02011-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 Petitioner Darnell Cain filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2013. Doc. 1. On March 28, 2014, United States Magistrate Judge 

James F. Metcalf issued a report and recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the 

petition be dismissed with prejudice and that a Certificate of Appealability be denied. 

Doc. 12 at 15. On May 13, 2014, the Court accepted the R&R because Petitioner had 

filed no objections to the R&R. Doc. 13. The Court also denied a Certificate of 

Appealability. Id. On May 15, 2014, Petitioner filed a “Supplemental Brief.” Doc. 15. 

On May 22, 2014, Petitioner filed a motion urging the Court to reconsider the 

supplemental brief because it contained objections to the R&R. Doc. 16 at 1-2. 

 Petitioner had 14 days to file objections to the R&R. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 

The R&R was filed on March 28, 2014. Doc. 12. As of May 13, 2014 – more than 45 

days later – Petitioner had filed no objection. The Court accordingly approved the R&R. 

 The R&R specifically warned Petitioner about the 14-day time limit and that 

“[f]ailure to timely file objections to any findings or recommendations . . . will be 

Case 2:13-cv-02011-DGC Document 21 Filed 07/09/14 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 

considered a waiver of a party’s right to de novo consideration of the issues.” Doc. 12 at 

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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Comm. Notes, 1991 Am. (“[O]bjections to magistrate’s 

orders that are not timely made shall not be considered.”). The R&R further warned that 

such failure “will constitute a waiver of [Petitioner’s] right to appellate review of the 

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the [R&R].” Doc. 12 at 15; 

see Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007). Because Petitioner’s 

supplemental brief was filed well outside of the 14-day filing period, he has waived his 

right to review. 

 Petitioner’s motion to reconsider provides no justification for his untimely 

objection to the R&R, but does note that Petitioner is untrained in the law. Petitioner’s 

lack of legal training does not, however, excuse his failure to comply with the clear time 

limit for objecting to the R&R. Meeks Junior v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2:13-cv-1261 

KJM DAD PS, 2014 WL 295171, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2014) (“Any individual 

representing himself or herself . . . is nonetheless bound by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Local Rules, and all applicable law.”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to reconsider the supplemental brief 

(Doc. 16) is denied. 

 Dated this 9th day of July, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-02011-DGC Document 21 Filed 07/09/14 Page 2 of 2