Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08214/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08214-1/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 

Michael Reed, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

G Fizer, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-08214-PCT-DJH

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Amended Report and Recommendation 

(“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 14) filed on 

October 1, 2015. The Petitioner asserts four grounds for relief, which Judge Metcalf 

summarized as follows: 

In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that his Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the trial 

court “blocked/lost/refused to file” his notice of post- conviction relief. In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that his sentence was unlawfully aggravated, in violation of his First, 

Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He argues in Ground Three that he was denied due process when the trial court refused to allow a delayed request for postconviction relief pursuant to Rule 60(c) and when his 

request for a new judge was denied by the presiding judge of 

the Superior Court. In Ground Four, Petitioner asserts that 

his due process rights were violated when the trial court 

denied his writ of coram nobis. 

R & R (Doc. 14 at 6:4-9) (citation omitted). Following a detailed and thorough analysis, 

Judge Metcalf recommended that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be 

Case 3:14-cv-08214-DJH Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

dismissed or, alternatively, denied on the merits. As to ground two, Judge Metcalf found 

it to be barred by the habeas statute of limitations. (Doc. 14 at 7-12). Alternatively, even 

if timely, Judge Metcalf found that ground two was without merit. (Id. at 30-36). Judge 

Metcalf further found that Petitioner’s federal claims in grounds one, three and four were 

procedurally defaulted. (Id. at 22-29). And, once again alternatively examining the 

merits, Judge Metcalf concluded that there was no merit to any of the federal claims 

asserted in grounds one, three and four. (Id. at 29-30). Accordingly, Judge Metcalf 

recommends that the Petition be dismissed, or alternatively, denied on the merits. (Id. at 

39). 

 In so recommending, Judge Metcalf explicitly advised the parties that they had 

"fourteen (14) days from the date of service of a copy of" that R&R "within which to file 

specific objections with the Court." (Doc. 14 at 39:23-24) (citation omitted). Further, 

Judge Metcalf explicitly advised that "[f]ailure to file timely objections to any factual or 

legal determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right 

to de novo consideration of those issues[.]" (Id. at 39:26-28) (emphasis added) (citing 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). Judge 

Metcalf was equally explicit that such failure “will constitute a waiver of a party’s right 

to appellate review of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment 

entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge[.]" (Id. at 40:1-4) 

(citing Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (9th Cir. 2007)). 

 In accordance with the foregoing, the parties had until October 19, 2015, by which 

to timely file objections to the R & R. The parties did not do so. Instead, on October 23, 

2015, after the expiration of the 14 day time frame which Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) imposes, 

and of which Judge Metcalf plainly advised the parties, Petitioner filed a “Response” to 

the R & R, which the Court deems to be Petitioner’s objections (Doc. 15). Petitioner was 

explicitly advised, not once, but twice, of this time frame and the consequences of noncompliance.1

 Given these untimely objections, Petitioner has waived his right to de novo

 

1

 This is an Amended R & R as noted at the outset. The significance of this is 

Case 3:14-cv-08214-DJH Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

review of the issues as noted above. 

 Absent any timely objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and 

recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The 

relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on 

its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

objected to.”). Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its 

findings and recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R, deny the 

Petition and dismiss this matter with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge 

of the 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)(3) (same). 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING as an Order of this Court 

Magistrate Judge Metcalf’s R&R (Doc. 14);

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING AND DISMISSING WITH 

PREJUDICE the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 

1); 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal are DENIED because dismissal of the Petition is justified, in part, by a plain 

procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural rulings debatable, and 

Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; and 

. . . . 

. . . . 

. . . . 

 

that in the original R & R, Judge Metcalf provided the parties with the same time frames and consequences with respect to the filing of objections. R & R (Doc. 11 at 38:7-20). What is more, Petitioner evinced his understanding of the foregoing by timely filing objections to the original R & R (Doc. 12). 

Case 3:14-cv-08214-DJH Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 26th day of October, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-08214-DJH Document 16 Filed 10/26/15 Page 4 of 4