Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01647/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01647-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Rand Parshall, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-1647-PHX-SMM (MEA)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

AND 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 Mark E. Aspey

for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 3.) On April 23, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed

a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. 14.) On May 8, 2013, Petitioner

requested additional time to file objections, which was granted. (Docs. 15, 16.) 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. Petitioner requested and was provided

additional time to file his objections to the report. Petitioner’s failure to object to a

Case 2:12-cv-01647-SMM Document 17 Filed 08/22/13 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 -

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 a factor to be weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver

of an issue on appeal.” Id.

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the thorough 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 denying relief.

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, based on the reasons set forth,

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

of the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 14.)

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

is DENIED, terminating this case. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

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

Case 2:12-cv-01647-SMM Document 17 Filed 08/22/13 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 regarding his ineffective assistance

of counsel claims. In addition, the dismissal of his remaining claims was justified by a plain

procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-01647-SMM Document 17 Filed 08/22/13 Page 3 of 3