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

 

 Before the Court is Petitioner Clinton James Dennis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Honorable Deborah F. Fine, United 

States Magistrate Judge, has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 18), 

recommending that the petition be denied as time-barred. Petitioner has filed an 

Objection (Doc. 19) and Declaration (Doc. 20) in response. 

 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 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 

Clinton James Dennis, 

 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-01840-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-01840-SPL Document 21 Filed 01/30/17 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 

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). 

 In his filings, Petitioner does not object to Magistrate Judge’s finding that his 

petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Nor does he point to any specific flaw in 

the Magistrate Judge’s analysis, much less makes any apparent reference to the R&R. 

Rather, in his filings, Petitioner generally contends that due process demands his claims 

be heard, he recites the facts of his case, and he criticizes the actions of various 

individuals which he believes led to his convictions. This is insufficient to trigger de novo

review of findings in the R&R. See Gutierrez v. Flannican, 2006 WL 2816599, at *2 (D. 

Ariz. Sept. 29, 2006) (where a Petitioner does not identify which of the Magistrate 

Judge’s findings he or she specifically disagrees with, the general objections to the R&R 

“are tantamount to no objection at all.”); Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (no review at all is 

required for “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Therefore, finding 

Petitioner has not filed a proper objection, and the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 

conclusions are well taken, the R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Magistrate Judge Fine’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is 

accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(Doc. 1) is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice; 

3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

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

and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable; and

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 2:15-cv-01840-SPL Document 21 Filed 01/30/17 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. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 30th day of January, 2017.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:15-cv-01840-SPL Document 21 Filed 01/30/17 Page 3 of 3