Source: https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/arizona/azdce/4:2016cv00054/962405/22
Timestamp: 2017-10-18 22:21:45
Document Index: 87050941

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

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 21 for Krassow v. Arizona, State of :: Justia Dockets & Filings
Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit Arizona Arizona District Court Krassow v. Arizona, State of Filing 22
Krassow v. Arizona, State of
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 21 . Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 4/25/17. (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 Jeffrey A Krassow, Petitioner, 10 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-16-00054-TUC-JGZ State of Arizona, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United 16 States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau that recommends denying Petitioner’s Petition 17 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 21.) 18 A review of the record reflects that the parties have not filed any objections to the 19 Report and Recommendation and the time to file objections has expired. As such, the 20 Court will not consider any objections or new evidence. 21 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Rateau’s 22 recommendations are not clearly erroneous. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley 24 v. Crabtree, 14 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 25 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability 26 must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). Federal Rule of 27 Appellate Procedure 22(b) requires the district court that rendered a judgment denying 28 the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 to "either issue a certificate of 1 appealability or state why a certificate should not issue." 2 §2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made a 3 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court 4 must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A 5 substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among 6 reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves 7 further proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review 8 of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court 9 concludes that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable Additionally, 28 U.S.C. 10 among reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings. 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 12 1. 13 adopted; 14 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED; 15 3. This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment 16 accordingly. 17 Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is accepted and Dated this 25th day of April, 2017. 18 19 20 Honorable Jennifer G. Zipps United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-