Roberson v. Shinn ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Jurel Dion Roberson, ) No. CV 18-86-TUC-JAS (DTF) ) 9 Petitioner, ) ORDER ) 10 vs. ) ) 11 ) Charles Ryan, et al. ) 12 ) Respondent. ) 13 ) ) 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 16 Magistrate Judge Ferraro that recommends denying Petitioner’s habeas petition filed 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254.1 As Petitioner’s objections do not undermine the analysis and 18 proper conclusion reached by Magistrate Judge Ferraro, Petitioner’s objections are rejected 19 and the Report and Recommendation is adopted. 20 The Court has reviewed the record and concludes that Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s 21 recommendations are not clearly erroneous and they are adopted. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); 23 Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998). 24 25 26 1The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 27 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 28 1 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must 2 || issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). The district court that rendered 3 | a judgment denying the petition made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 must either issue a 4 || certificate of appealability or state why a certificate should not issue. See id. Additionally, 5 | 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(2) provides that a certificate may issue "only if the applicant has made 6 || asubstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." In the certificate, the court must 7 || indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). A substantial 8 || showing is made when the resolution of an issue of appeal is debatable among reasonable 9 || jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, or if the issue deserves further 10 |] proceedings. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). Upon review of the 11 } record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes 12 |] that a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among 13 || reasonable jurists and does not deserve further proceedings. 14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 15 || (1) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is accepted and adopted. 16 |] (2) Petitioner’s §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. 17 || (3) A Certificate of Appealability is denied and shall not issue. 18 || (4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment, terminate all pending motions, and close the 19 | file in this case. 20 Dated this 28th day of September, 2020. 21 22 nf Sho 24 Honorable James A. Soto 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 _2-