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

 

 The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), the Answer from the Respondents (Doc. 17) and the Petitioner’s 

Reply. (Doc. 34) Additionally, the Court is in receipt of the Report and Recommendation 

of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 35), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 36), and Respondent’s 

Response to the Objections. (Doc. 37) 

 In the instant Petition, the Petitioner argues Arizona’s Rule 32 post-conviction relief 

remedy is unavailable and inadequate to protect his constitutional rights; 3 trial court 

violations of his constitutional rights; and that he suffered prejudice because he believed 

his counsel was incompetent. (Doc. 1 at 5-34) 

 A district judge “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). When a party files a 

timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R 

that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires 

specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United 

Larry E. Dobson, 

 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-17-4475-PHX-SPL 

ORDER 

 
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 

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It 

follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific 

objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 

U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial 

economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or 

arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s 

decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 

(9th Cir. 2000). 

 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently 

developed record. The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have 

also been thoroughly considered. 

 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches 

the same conclusions reached by Judge Metcalf. This Court finds the Petition is delinquent 

by almost a half-decade. Furthermore, the Petitioner has not provided a basis for equitable 

tolling, statutory tolling or actual innocence to account for the substantial delay in filing. 

Having carefully reviewed the record, the Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to 

habeas relief. The R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 35) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 36) are overruled; 

3. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and this action 

is dismissed with prejudice; 

4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

on appeal are denied because the dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 

bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable; and 
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 

5. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 20th day of February 2019.

Honorable Steven P. Logan 

United States District Judge