Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00326/USCOURTS-azd-4_13-cv-00326-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Becky Clay
Respondent
Christopher Consago
Petitioner

Document Text:

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 

Christopher Consago, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Becky Clay, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-13-00326-TUC-DCB

ORDER 

 On July 23, 2013, this matter was referred to a magistrate judge, pursuant to Rules 

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, and transferred to Magistrate Judge 

Eric J. Markovich, on April 22, 2014. He issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) 

on May 27, 2016. (Doc. 30: R&R). He recommends that the Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus, filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative 

remedies. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 The duties of the district court, when reviewing a R&R from a Magistrate Judge, 

are set forth in Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1). The district 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), 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When the parties object to a R&R, “‘[a] judge of the [district] court 

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 

findings and recommendations to which objection is made.’” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

Case 4:13-cv-00326-DCB Document 31 Filed 07/05/16 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 

140, 149-50 (1985) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). When no objections are filed, the 

district court does not need to review the R&R de novo. Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 

1000 n. 13 (9th Cir.2005); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121-22 (9th 

Cir.2003) (en banc). To the extent that no objection has been made, arguments to the 

contrary have been waived. McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980) 

(failure to object to Magistrate's report waives right to do so on appeal); see also, 

Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. 

Court, 501 F.2d 196, 206 (9th Cir. 1974) (when no timely objection is 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)). 

 The parties were sent copies of the R&R and instructed they had 14 days to file 

written objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), see also, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 72 

(party objecting to the recommended disposition has fourteen (14) days to file specific, 

written objections). To date, the Petitioner has not filed an objection to the 

recommendation to dismiss the Petition. 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 The Honorable Eric J. Markovich, United States Magistrate Judge, rejected the 

Government’s challenge to this Court’s jurisdiction because the Petition challenged the 

execution by the Bureau of Prison (BOP) of the sentencing order and judgment. 

Specifically, the Petition challenges the BOP’s scheduling of restitution payments, not 

the sentencing order itself. Petitioner admitted he did not exhaust administrative 

remedies available through BOP’s internal mechanism for addressing allegedly deficient 

restitution. In Ward v. Chaves, 678 F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir. 2012), the court found that 

for a restitution order to be lawful under 18 U.S.C. § 3664, the district court must set the 

restitution schedule based on the financial circumstances of the defendant, the BOP lacks 

the authority to collect the award where the Court did not set out a proper payment 

schedule. Subsequent, to Ward v. Chaves, the BOP implemented protocols for 

addressing the very type of grievance made by the Plaintiff in his Petition. Instead of 

Case 4:13-cv-00326-DCB Document 31 Filed 07/05/16 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 

proceeding under those protocols, he filed his Petition. Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion 

that exhaustion would be futile fails in light of the specifically developed BOP protocol 

for addressing the Petitioner’s claims. 

 While there are no objections and review has, therefore, been waived, the Court 

reviews at a minimum, de novo, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law. Robbins v. 

Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 

(9th Cir. 1998) (conclusions of law by a magistrate judge reviewed de novo); Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to object standing alone will not 

ordinarily waive question of law, but is a factor in considering the propriety of finding 

waiver)). The Court finds the R&R to be thorough and well-reasoned, without any clear 

error in law or fact. See United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 617-618 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), providing for district court to reconsider matters 

delegated to magistrate judge when there is clear error or recommendation is contrary to 

law). The Court accepts and adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 30) is adopted as 

the opinion of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter Judgment 

accordingly. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff proceeding here in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in the event the Plaintiff files an appeal, the Court finds the 

appeal is not taken in good faith because an appeal would be frivolous as there is no 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 4:13-cv-00326-DCB Document 31 Filed 07/05/16 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 

substantial argument to be made contrary to this Court’s determination recorded here. 28 

U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) and FRAP 24(a); Cruz v. Hauck, 404 U.S. 59, 62 (1971). 

 Dated this 5th day of July, 2016. 

Case 4:13-cv-00326-DCB Document 31 Filed 07/05/16 Page 4 of 4