Broman v. Ryan ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Jerrold Dean Broman, No. CV-19-00082-TUC-RM 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 David Shinn, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 16 On January 19, 2021, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Rateau issued a Report and 17 Recommendation (Doc. 25) recommending that this Court dismiss as time-barred 18 Petitioner Jerrold Dean Broman’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254. No objections to the Report and Recommendation were filed. 20 A district judge must “make a de novo determination of those portions” of a 21 magistrate judge’s “report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which 22 objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The advisory committee’s notes to Rule 23 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that, “[w]hen no timely objection is 24 filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record 25 in order to accept the recommendation” of a magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) 26 advisory committee’s note to 1983 addition. See also Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 27 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999) (“If no objection or only partial objection is made, the 28 district court judge reviews those unobjected portions for clear error.”); Prior v. Ryan, |} CV 10-225-TUC-RCC, 2012 WL 1344286, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2012) (reviewing for 2|| clear error unobjected-to portions of Report and Recommendation). 3 The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Rateau’s Report and Recommendation, the parties’ briefs, and the record. The Court finds no error in Magistrate Judge Rateau’s || Report and Recommendation. Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) is accepted and adopted in full. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Jerrold Dean Broman’s Petition for 9|| Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is dismissed with 10 || prejudice as time-barred. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly 11 |} and close this case. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing 13 || Section 2254 Cases, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478, 484 (2000). 16 Dated this 23rd day of February, 2021. 17 18 19 {> “0 Honorable Rosemary Mafquez 21 United States District □□□□□ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2-