Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00772/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00772-1/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 

Roberto Vargas, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-12-00772-TUC-RM

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) issued by 

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline M. Rateau. In the Report and Recommendation, Judge 

Rateau recommends denying Petitioner Robert Vargas’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus (Doc. 1) filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

 On December 12, 2014, Petitioner filed a Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 16) 

to file objections to Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation. The Court granted the 

Motion on December 17, 2014, and ordered that Petitioner’s objections be filed no later 

than February 13, 2015 (see Doc. 17). A review of the docket shows that, to date, 

Petitioner has not filed objections to Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation. 

 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 

magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Rule 8(b) of the Rules Governing 

2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. The advisory committee notes to Rule 

72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 

Case 4:12-cv-00772-RM Document 18 Filed 03/27/15 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 

filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 

in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. See also Prior v. Ryan, 

2012 WL 1344286, *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for clear error unobjected-to 

portions of Report and Recommendation on § 2254 petition); Johnson v. Zema Sys. 

Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is 

made, the district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”). 

 The Court has reviewed the record and finds no error in Judge Rateau’s thorough 

and carefully reasoned Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, the Report and 

Recommendation will be adopted in full and Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition will be denied. 

 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court’s judgment, a certificate of appealability 

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). A certificate may issue 

“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2). In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific 

issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made if 

“reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a 

different manner,” of if “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to 

proceed further.” See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (internal 

quotation omitted). Upon review of the record in light of the standards for granting a 

certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the 

resolution of the Petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists and does not deserve 

further proceedings. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

 1. Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted 

and adopted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied. 

 3. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter 

judgment accordingly. 

. . . . 

Case 4:12-cv-00772-RM Document 18 Filed 03/27/15 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 

 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

 Dated this 25th day of March, 2015. 

Honorable Rosemary Márquez

United States District Judge

Case 4:12-cv-00772-RM Document 18 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 3