Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/4:2010cv00323/526740/16
Timestamp: 2018-04-19 16:09:42
Document Index: 293005418

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2254', '§2254', '§2254', '§ 636', '§2254', '§2253', '§2254', '§2253', '§2253', '§2254']

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 , Petitioner's §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice for Lacey v. Ryan :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona Arizona District Court Lacey v. Ryan Filing 16
Lacey v. Ryan
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 , Petitioner's §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this matter.Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 7/15/11. (See attached PDF for complete information.)(KAH)
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lee Lacey, Petitioner, 10 11 vs. 12 Charles Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 10-323-TUC-FRZ (BPV) ORDER 15 16 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 17 Magistrate Judge Velasco that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas petition filed 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed 19 any objections to the Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. 20 As such, the Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. 21 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Velasco’s 22 recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 23 Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); Conley v. Crabtree, 14 24 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). The Report and Recommendation is adopted and the 25 §2254 petition is dismissed with prejudice. 26 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must 27 issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of Appellate 28 Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying the petition 1 made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of appealability or state why 2 a certificate should not issue." Additionally, 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate 3 may issue "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 4 constitutional right." In the certificate, the court must indicate which specific issues satisfy 5 this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A substantial showing is made when the 6 resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve 7 the issues differently, or if the issue deserves further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 8 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review of the record in light of the standards for 9 granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue 10 as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists and does not 11 deserve further proceedings. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 13 (1) Magistrate Judge Velasco’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted and 14 adopted. 15 (2) Petitioner’s §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. 16 (3) A Certificate of Appealability is denied. 17 (4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this matter. 18 19 DATED this 15th day of July, 2011. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-