Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00268/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00268-1/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

WO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Prentiss Coghill, 

Petitioner,

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents, _______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 13-268 TUC DCB

O R D E R

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau, pursuant to Rules

of Practice for the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Local Rules), Rule (Civil)

72.1(a). She issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) on August 19, 2015. (R&R (Doc.

18)). She recommends that the Petition be dismissed because his claims were procedurally

defaulted in the state courts and federal review is, accordingly, precluded.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R of a Magistrate Judge, are set

forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The district

court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

by the magistrate judge.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When 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.’” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985)

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When no objections are filed, the district court does not need

to 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). To the extent that no

objection has been made, arguments to the contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628

Case 4:13-cv-00268-DCB Document 19 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

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).

The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file written

objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 (party objecting

to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, written objections). To

date, no objections have been filed.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

The Honorable Jacqueline M. Rateau did an exceptional job of explaining the doctrines

of exhaustion and procedural default. This Court can add nothing to her explanation of the law

and her application of the law to the facts of this Petition. As she noted, Petitioner’s claims were

raised in the state courts, pursuant to his Post Conviction Relief petition, and have been found

by the state court to be procedurally defaulted. Therefore, Petitioner’s claims are precluded from

federal review because they have been denied under independent and adequate state procedural

grounds. 

While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court

nevertheless reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law.

Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449,

455 (9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v.

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will not ordinarily

waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding waiver)). The Court

finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear error in law or fact. See

United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (United States v. Remsing, 874

F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) as providing for district court

to reconsider matters delegated to magistrate judge when there is clear error or recommendation

is contrary to law). The Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant

Case 4:13-cv-00268-DCB Document 19 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court denies the Amended

Petition.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is adopted as the

opinion of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition (Doc. 6) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment

accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court

declines to issue a certificate of appealability, pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 cases because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling

debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

DATED this 7th day of October, 2015.

Case 4:13-cv-00268-DCB Document 19 Filed 10/09/15 Page 3 of 3