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 

Robbin Shea Brown, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

S. Lake, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-16-026-TUC-FRZ 

ORDER 

 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge, recommending that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Robbin Shea Brown pro se − in which Petitioner 

challenges the loss of 52 days of good-time credits following disciplinary proceeding 

while incarcerated − be denied. 

 This matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b); Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and LRCiv 72.1 and 

72.2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of 

Arizona, for further proceedings and Report and Recommendation. 

 Magistrate Judge Leslie Ann Bowman issued her Report and Recommendation 

(Doc. 12), recommending that the District Court, after its independent review of the 

record, enter an order denying the petition for writ of habeas corpus based on the merits 

of the claim. The Report and Recommendation includes a thorough analysis on the 

merits of the claim presented. 

 

Case 4:16-cv-00026-FRZ Document 14 Filed 09/02/16 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 

 No objections were filed. 

 Upon consideration of the petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent’s answer 

and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds, having 

made a full and independent review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), that the petition 

shall be denied on the merits. 

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

must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b)(1). A certificate may issue 

“only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made if “reasonable jurists 

could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner,” 

or if “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation omitted). 

 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 ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is hereby 

accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions of law of this Court; 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ 

of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied; 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is dismissed; the Clerk of Court is 

directed to enter judgment according; 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a certificate of appealability shall not issue. 

 

 Dated this 1st day of September, 2016. 

Honorable Frank R. Zapata 

Senior United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-00026-FRZ Document 14 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 2