Norman v. Ryan

D. Arizona

Norman v. Ryan

District Court, D. Arizona·Decided October 2, 2019·No. 3:18-cv-08179-JAT·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 8 Thomas Joseph Norman, No. CV-18-08179-PCT-NVW (DMF) 9 Petitioner, ORDER 10 and 11 v. DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF

Charles L. Ryan, et al., APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 12 PAUPERIS STATUS 13 Respondents. 14 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 15 Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 18) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 16 Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that 17 the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 18 they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 25 (citing United States v. 19 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner filed objections on September 20 30, 2019 (Doc. 21). 21 The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 22 Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 23 the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 24 Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the 25 Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning 26 of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 27 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 28 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the || Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18) is accepted. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5 | 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 6 A certificate of appealability is denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified 7 || by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling 8 || debatable. 9 Dated: October 1, 2019. 1] Neil V. Wake Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5. 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 8 Thomas Joseph Norman, No. CV-18-08179-PCT-NVW (DMF) 9 Petitioner, ORDER 10 and 11 v. DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF

Charles L. Ryan, et al., APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 12 PAUPERIS STATUS 13 Respondents. 14 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 15 Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine (Doc. 18) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 16 Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The R&R recommends that 17 the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that 18 they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 25 (citing United States v. 19 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner filed objections on September 20 30, 2019 (Doc. 21). 21 The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and 22 Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 23 the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 24 Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the 25 Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning 26 of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 27 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, 28 the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the || Magistrate Judge (Doc. 18) is accepted. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5 | 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 6 A certificate of appealability is denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified 7 || by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling 8 || debatable. 9 Dated: October 1, 2019. 1] Neil V. Wake Senior United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5. 28

Norman v. Ryan, (D. Ariz. 2019).

Pincite

Norman v. Ryan (Norman v. Ryan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related