Collins v. Brnovich

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 19, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01244
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Donald Marvin Collins, No. CV-22-01244-PHX-DJH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Mark Brnovich, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of 16 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7) filed on October 22, 2022, and the 17 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge John Z. 18 Boyle (Doc. 13) on March 17, 2023. Petitioner filed an Objection to the R&R 19 (“Objection”) (Doc. 14) on March 24, 2023. 20 Petitioner raised four grounds for relief in his Amended Petition. (Doc. 13 at 3). 21 After a thorough analysis, Judge Boyle determined that the Amended Petition was filed 22 after the statute of limitations period expired, that he was not entitled to statutory or 23 equitable tolling. (Doc. 13 at 6). Accordingly, Judge Boyle recommends the Amended 24 Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Id.) 25 I. Standard of Review 26 The district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the 27 report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 1 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 2 objected to.”); U.S. v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (2003) (same). The judge “may 3 accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 4 the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). 5 II. Background 6 The Magistrate Judge set forth the full procedural background of this case in the 7 R&R. (Doc. 26 at 1–4). The Court need not repeat that information here. Moreover, 8 Petitioner has not objected to any of the information in the background section. See 9 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (nothing the relevant provision of the Federal 10 Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any review at all 11 . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection”). 12 III. Petitioner’s Objection 13 Petitioner’s Objection reiterates many of the merit-based arguments he advances 14 in his Amended Petition. Judge Boyle, however, did not reach the merits of Petitioner’s 15 claims because he found the Amended Petition was untimely. (Doc. 13 at 4–7). See also 16 White v. Klitzkie, 281 F.3d 920, 921–22 (9th Cir. 2002) (whether a federal habeas petition 17 is time-barred must be resolved before considering other procedural issues or the merits 18 of any habeas claim). Petitioner’s merit arguments therefore are not objections the Court 19 is obligated to review under the Federal Magistrates Act. Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150 20 (where there is no objection to a magistrate’s factual and legal determinations, the district 21 court need not review the decision “under a de novo or any other standard”). Moreover, 22 the Court agrees with Judge Boyle that Petitioner’s Amended Petition is untimely, and 23 thus also does not reach Petitioner’s merit-based arguments. 24 Petitioner also does not object to the factual basis from which Judge Boyle 25 calculated Petitioner’s applicable statute of limitations and filing deadlines. Pursuant to 26 the authorities cited above, the Court is also not obligated to review these findings. 27 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed these conclusions and agrees with Judge Boyle as to 28 their accuracy. 1 As to the remainder of the Petitioner’s objections, the Court finds Petitioner has 2 not triggered de novo review because they lack the requisite specificity. Indeed, 3 Petitioner does not object to any specific portion of Judge Boyle’s analysis at all. 4 Instead, as noted, he reiterates the arguments he advances in his Amended Petition. 5 Because Petitioner has not articulated what, if any, objectionable findings the Magistrate 6 Judge did make as to his claims, the Court lacks any meaningful basis for review. His 7 failure to identify any flaws in the legal analysis of the R&R has the same effect as a 8 complete failure to object. Haley v. Stewart, 2006 WL 1980649, at *2 (D. Ariz. July 6, 9 2006)) (“Because de novo review of an entire R&R would defeat the efficiencies 10 intended by Congress, a general objection “has the same effect as would a failure to 11 object.”); Gutierrez v. Flannican, 2006 WL 2816599 (D. Ariz. 2006) (citing Goney v. 12 Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984). See also United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 13 622 (4th Cir. 2007) (finding that “a party must object to [a] finding or recommendation. . 14 . with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground 15 for the objection” and citing cases standing for same proposition from the Third, Sixth, 16 Seventh, and Tenth Circuits). If this Court were to undertake de novo review of 17 Petitioner’s general objections, it would defeat the “obvious purpose” of the specific 18 objection requirement, which “is judicial economy—to permit magistrate judges to hear 19 and resolve matters not objectionable to the parties.” Warling v. Ryan, 2013 WL 20 5276367, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2013) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149; Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 21 at 1121). In light of the foregoing, the Court has no obligation to review Petitioner’s 22 general objections to the R&R. See id. 23 Although the Court could simply accept the R&R based upon this case law, it did 24 not. The Court reviewed the R&R, some of the many various exhibits referenced therein, 25 and the applicable law. Judge Boyle’s analysis and recommendations are sound and the 26 Court adopts them in their entirety. 27 IV. Conclusion 28 Based on the foregoing, 1 IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Boyle’s R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted and 2|| adopted as the Order of this Court. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing || Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis || on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Amended Petition is justified by a plain 8 || procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 9 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action || and enter judgment accordingly. 11 Dated this 19th day of October, 2023. 12 13 Gum □□ 14 norable'Diang4. Humetewa 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-