Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00543/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00543-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Forest Clayton, 

Petitioner,

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-15-543-PHX-SMM (ESW)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett

for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 4.) On March 1, 2016, Magistrate Judge Willett

filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 12.) To date, no objections have

been filed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v. Sullivan,

923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy

of the Magistrate’s recommendation within which to file specific written objections to the

Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s

recommendation relieves the Court of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s

factual findings and waives all objections to those findings on appeal. See Turner v. Duncan,

158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is

Case 2:15-cv-00543-SMM Document 13 Filed 05/10/16 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 -

a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.”

Id.

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and no

Objections having been made by any party thereto, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. 

The standard for this Court to issue a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) is whether

the applicant has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right .” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. “Where a

district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to

satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “When the district court denies a habeas

petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional

claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its

procedural ruling.” Id.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth,

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 12.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Petitioner’s request for an evidentiary

hearing. (Doc. 1.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

is DENIED AND DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, terminating this case. (Doc. 1.) The

Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to

Case 2:15-cv-00543-SMM Document 13 Filed 05/10/16 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 -

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

DATED this 9th day of May, 2016.

Case 2:15-cv-00543-SMM Document 13 Filed 05/10/16 Page 3 of 3