Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00404/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00404-1/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

Justin D McLaughlin,

Petitioner,

v. 

David Shinn, et al.,

Respondents.

NO. CV-19-00404-PHX-MTL

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (R & R) by Magistrate 

Judge John Z. Boyle, recommending that this Court deny and dismiss with prejudice 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

(Doc. 15.) Petitioner did not file any objections to the R & R. For reasons stated below, 

the Court will adopt Judge Boyle’s recommendation for dismissal of the Petition. 

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner Justin D. McLaughlin filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on 

January 28, 2019, challenging the state court’s calculation of his presentence incarceration 

credit. (Doc. 1.) Respondents filed a Response (Doc. 11) and Petitioner filed a Reply 

(Doc. 14.) The R & R concludes that Petitioner’s claim is not cognizable as a state law 

claim. (Doc. 15 at 1, 3) (“Whether the trial court violated the Arizona Rules of Criminal 

Procedure does not present a federal question.”) (citations omitted). The R & R further 

finds that even if even Petitioner’s claim is construed as alleging a Fourteenth Amendment

violation, it is unexhausted and procedurally defaulted because Petitioner did not raise the 

Case 2:19-cv-00404-MTL Document 17 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 3
- 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

claim in post-conviction proceedings or present it as a federal claim in state court. (Id.) 

Therefore, the R & R recommends that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

(Id.) 

The R & R, which was entered on September 5, 2019, informed the parties that they 

would have “14 days from the date of service of a copy of [the R & R] within which to file 

specific written objections with the Court” and that “[f]ailure to timely file objections to 

the [R & R] may result in the acceptance of the [R & R] by the district court without further 

review.” (Doc. 15 at 6.) To date, Petitioner has not filed any written objections to the R 

& R. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

When a federal district court reviews a state prisoner’s habeas corpus petition 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, “it must decide whether the petitioner is ‘in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Coleman v. 

Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 730 (1991) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254). When reviewing a 

Magistrate Judge’s R & R, this Court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which 

an objection is made and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 

or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

Parties have fourteen days from the service of a copy of the R & R to file specific 

written objections with the Court. 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(1)(C). District courts are not 

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 

objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

III. DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the R & R, and no Objections having been made by any party, the 

Court hereby incorporates and adopts the R & R.

Petitioner did not ask the Court to issue a certificate of appealability. But this Court 

must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 

applicant. Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A certificate of 

appealability may only issue when the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the 

Case 2:19-cv-00404-MTL Document 17 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 3
- 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

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner has not made a 

substantial showing that denying the Petition would deny him a constitutional right. The 

Court therefore will not issue a certificate of appealability.

IV. CONCLUSION

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 

1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a certificate of appealability.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter final judgment 

consistent with this Order and dismiss the case. 

Dated this 7th day of April, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-00404-MTL Document 17 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 3