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

Jose Raul Juarez-Orci,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-18-00071-TUC-JAS

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 

Magistrate Judge Markovich that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas petition filed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.1 A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed 

any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has 

expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence.

The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge 

Markovich’s recommendations are not clearly erroneous and they are adopted. See 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 

(7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

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

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). The district court that 

1The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to 

portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 

(7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

Case 4:18-cv-00071-JAS Document 13 Filed 09/09/20 Page 1 of 2
- 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

rendered a judgment denying the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 must either 

issue a certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not issue. See id.

Additionally, 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue “only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 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 when the resolution of an issue of appeal is 

debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the 

issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).

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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is accepted and adopted.

(2) Petitioner’s §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice.

(3) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue.

(4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case.

Dated this 8th day of September, 2020.

Case 4:18-cv-00071-JAS Document 13 Filed 09/09/20 Page 2 of 2