Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08195/USCOURTS-azd-3_12-cv-08195-0/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 

Raymond Carrion Sanchez,

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-08195-PCT-NVW

ORDER 

AND 

DENIAL OFCERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 

Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson. (Doc. 18) regarding petitioner’s Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R 

recommends that the Petition be denied. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 

they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at P. 13 ln. 2) (citing 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner filed objections on November 18, 2013 (Doc. 22). 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the 

meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 

Case 3:12-cv-08195-NVW Document 25 Filed 11/19/13 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 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 

1). The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order 

denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, a Certificate of Appealability 

and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because of plain procedural 

bar and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right has been made. 

Also before the Court is Petitioner’s Request for Change of Magistrate Judge 

(Doc. 24). The Request states no legal basis for a change of the magistrate judge in this 

case. Moreover, the Request is untimely, as the Magistrate Judge has concluded his work 

on this case. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Change of Magistrate 

Judge (Doc. 24) is denied. 

Dated this 19th day of November, 2013. 

Case 3:12-cv-08195-NVW Document 25 Filed 11/19/13 Page 2 of 2