Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00475/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00475-1/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

Byron L Hagans,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-00475-TUC-JAS (LAB)

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) issued by 

United States Magistrate Judge Leslie Bowman that recommends denying Petitioner’s 

habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.1 As Petitioner’s objections do not 

undermine the analysis and proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Bowman, 

Petitioner’s objections are rejected and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.

The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Bowman’s

recommendations are not clearly erroneous, and they are adopted. See 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 

1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

1The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to 

portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 

(7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

Case 4:19-cv-00475-JAS-LAB Document 12 Filed 03/27/20 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

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

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). The district court that 

rendered a judgment denying the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 must either 

issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not issue. See id. 

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 (2000).

Upon review of the record 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 HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) is accepted and adopted.

(2) Petitioner’s §2254 habeas petition (Doc. 1) is denied and this case is dismissed with 

prejudice.

(3) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue.

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.

Dated this 26th day of March, 2020.

Case 4:19-cv-00475-JAS-LAB Document 12 Filed 03/27/20 Page 2 of 2