Bearden v. Hacker-Agnew

D. Arizona

Bearden v. Hacker-Agnew

DecidedSeptember 20, 2019

Docket2:18-cv-02451

StatusUnknown

This text of Bearden v. Hacker-Agnew (Bearden v. Hacker-Agnew) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bearden v. Hacker-Agnew, (D. Ariz. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Wayne B Bearden, Jr., No. CV-18-02451-PHX-JAT

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Carla Hacker-Agnew, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate 16 Judge recommending that the Petition in this case be denied and dismissed as untimely. 17 (Doc. 12). This Court previously granted an extension of time, to September 6, 2019, to 18 file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 14). No timely objections have 19 been received. 20 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 21 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of 22 any issue that is not the subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna- 23 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the 24 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo 25 if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. 26 Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). 27 Based on the foregoing, 28 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is ACCEPTED; 1 ° Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice, 3 e in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of 4|| appealability is denied because denial of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and 5 || jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack vy. 6|| McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and 7 ° the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice. 8 Dated this 20th day of September, 2019. 9 10 A 11 James A. Teilborg 12 Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Wayne B Bearden, Jr., No. CV-18-02451-PHX-JAT

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Carla Hacker-Agnew, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation from the Magistrate 16 Judge recommending that the Petition in this case be denied and dismissed as untimely. 17 (Doc. 12). This Court previously granted an extension of time, to September 6, 2019, to 18 file objections to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 14). No timely objections have 19 been received. 20 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 21 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of 22 any issue that is not the subject of an objection” (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna- 23 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“statute makes it clear that the 24 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo 25 if objection is made, but not otherwise” (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. 26 Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). 27 Based on the foregoing, 28 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 12) is ACCEPTED; 1 ° Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice, 3 e in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of 4|| appealability is denied because denial of the petition is based on a plain procedural bar and 5 || jurists of reason would not find this Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack vy. 6|| McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and 7 ° the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice. 8 Dated this 20th day of September, 2019. 9 10 A 11 James A. Teilborg 12 Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bearden v. Hacker-Agnew, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bearden-v-hacker-agnew-azd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack