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

1

The 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).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jurel Dion Roberson, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al. 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 18-86-TUC-JAS (DTF)

ORDER

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

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.1

 As Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the analysis and

proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Ferraro, Petitioner’s objections are rejected

and the Report and Recommendation is adopted.

The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Ferraro’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). 

Case 4:18-cv-00086-JAS Document 25 Filed 09/28/20 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

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 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. 19) 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, terminate all pending motions, and close the

file in this case.

Dated this 28th day of September, 2020.

Case 4:18-cv-00086-JAS Document 25 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 2