Opinion
No. CV-15-01840-PHX-SPL
01-30-2017
Clinton James Dennis, Petitioner, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner Clinton James Dennis's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). The Honorable Deborah F. Fine, United States Magistrate Judge, has issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 18), recommending that the petition be denied as time-barred. Petitioner has filed an Objection (Doc. 19) and Declaration (Doc. 20) in response.
A 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).
In his filings, Petitioner does not object to Magistrate Judge's finding that his petition is barred by the statute of limitations. Nor does he point to any specific flaw in the Magistrate Judge's analysis, much less makes any apparent reference to the R&R. Rather, in his filings, Petitioner generally contends that due process demands his claims be heard, he recites the facts of his case, and he criticizes the actions of various individuals which he believes led to his convictions. This is insufficient to trigger de novo review of findings in the R&R. See Gutierrez v. Flannican, 2006 WL 2816599, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2006) (where a Petitioner does not identify which of the Magistrate Judge's findings he or she specifically disagrees with, the general objections to the R&R "are tantamount to no objection at all."); Thomas, 474 U.S. at 149 (no review at all is required for "any issue that is not the subject of an objection."). Therefore, finding Petitioner has not filed a proper objection, and the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions are well taken, the R&R will be adopted in full. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That Magistrate Judge Fine's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is accepted and adopted by the Court;
2. That the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice;
3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable; and / / / / / /
/ / /
4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.
Dated this 30th day of January, 2017.
/s/_________
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge