Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Huggins v. Ryan

United States District Court, D. Arizona

October 2, 2014

GLEN ALAN HUGGINS, Petitioner,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, et al., Respondents.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS

SHARON L. GLEASON, District Judge.

Before the Court at Docket 1 is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Glen Alan Huggins pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondents Charles L. Ryan, et al., filed a Limited Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus at Docket 9. Mr. Huggins filed a Reply at Docket 13. On May 7, 2014, at Docket 14, Magistrate Judge Steven P. Logan issued a Report and Recommendation. After a thoughtful and thorough analysis, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Petition be denied and that this action be dismissed with prejudice.[1] The Magistrate Judge further recommended that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied. Neither party has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.[2]

The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). That statute provides that a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge."[3] The court is to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [magistrate judge's] report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made."[4] But when no objections are filed, "[n]either the Constitution nor [28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)] requires a district judge to review, de novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct."[5]

There being no objections, and following this Court's review of the Report and Recommendation, the Court hereby ACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Steven P. Logan.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Habeas Corpus is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because Mr. Huggins has not "made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right" as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)[6] and, given the clear procedural bar to Mr. Huggins' petition, any appeal would not be taken in good faith.[7]

The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment accordingly.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.