United States District Court, D. Arizona
HONORABLE STEVEN P. LOGAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Court has before it Petitioner's Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1),
Petitioner's Motion to Allow Petitioner Access to each
DVD in his Trial File (Doc. 17), Respondents' Answer
(Doc. 18), and Petitioner's Reply in Support of the
Petition for Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 25.) We also have before us
the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of United States
Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf (Doc. 32), Petitioner's
Response to the Report and recommendation (Doc. 33),
Respondents' Response to the Petitioner's Objections
to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 34), and
Petitioner's Motion Requesting a Ruling on the Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 35.)
was indicted May 12, 2012, on seven counts of sexual assault,
four counts of kidnapping, two counts of sexual abuse, one
count of attempted sexual assault, and one count of public
sexual indecency. (Doc. 18, Ex. P.) The charges were based on
events that occurred between October 2004 and September 2011.
(Id.) At trial, four victims testified that the
Petitioner forced them into his vehicle and sexually
assaulted them. (Id.) The jury convicted the
Petitioner of all but one count and the Petitioner was
subsequently sentenced to 69 years of imprisonment.
Petitioner raised 20 grounds for relief in his Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1.) Upon review of the R&R
and the parties' submissions, the Court will adopt in
whole Judge Metcalf's recommendations and the underlying
reasoning. Judge Metcalf correctly concluded the
Petitioner's claims merited no relief and that the
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be dismissed with
prejudice. (Doc. 32.)
Objections to the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner
repeats the same arguments that were laid out in the
Petition. (Doc. 1.) Additionally, the Petitioner continues to
articulate his version of the facts as he recalls them. (Doc.
district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a
party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district
judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R
that have been “properly objected to.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A proper objection requires
specific written objections to the findings and
recommendations in the R&R. See United States v.
Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not
conduct any review of portions to which no specific objection
has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121;
see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)
(discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is
judicial economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of
right to de novo review of evidence or arguments
which are raised for the first time in an objection to the
R&R, and the Court's decision to consider them is
discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d
615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).
Court finds that although the Petitioner filed objections
(Doc. 33), he failed to provide specific written objections
to the findings and recommendations in the R&R.
Nonetheless, the Court has undertaken an extensive review of
the sufficiently developed record and the objections to the
findings and recommendations in the very detailed R&R,
without the need for an evidentiary hearing.
conducting a de novo review of the issues and
objections, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached by
Judge Metcalf Specifically, the Court finds the claims are
not cognizable on habeas and/or are procedurally barred.
carefully reviewed the record, the Petitioner has not shown
that he is entitled to habeas relief. Finding none of
Petitioner's objections have merit, the R&R will be
adopted in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 32) is accepted and
adopted by the Court;
2. That the Petitioner's Objections (Doc. 33) are
3. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is
denied and this action is dismissed
4. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal are
denied because the dismissal of the Petition
is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable ...