Threats v. Shartle ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lonzell J. Threats, No. 17-542-TUC-JAS (BGM) 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 J.T. Shartle, Warden 13 Respondent. 14 15 DISCUSSION 16 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 17 Magistrate Judge Macdonald. The Report and Recommendation recommends denying 18 Petitioner’s habeas petition. Petitioner filed objections and the Government filed a 19 response to those objections.1 20 As a threshold matter, as to any new evidence, arguments, and issues that were not 21 timely and properly raised before United States Magistrate Judge Macdonald, the Court 22 exercises its discretion to not consider those matters and considers them waived. United 23 States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-623 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] district court has discretion, 24 but is not required, to consider evidence presented for the first time in a party's objection 25 to a magistrate judge's recommendation . . . [I]n making a decision on whether to consider 26 newly offered evidence, the district court must . . . exercise its discretion . . . [I]n providing 27 for a de novo determination rather than de novo hearing, Congress intended to permit 28 1 Unless otherwise noted by the Court, internal quotes and citations have been omitted when citing authority throughout this Order. 1 whatever reliance a district judge, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, chose to 2 place on a magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendations . . . The magistrate 3 judge system was designed to alleviate the workload of district courts . . . To require a 4 district court to consider evidence not previously presented to the magistrate judge would 5 effectively nullify the magistrate judge's consideration of the matter and would not help to 6 relieve the workload of the district court. Systemic efficiencies would be frustrated and the 7 magistrate judge's role reduced to that of a mere dress rehearser if a party were allowed to 8 feint and weave at the initial hearing, and save its knockout punch for the second round . . 9 . Equally important, requiring the district court to hear evidence not previously presented 10 to the magistrate judge might encourage sandbagging. [I]t would be fundamentally unfair 11 to permit a litigant to set its case in motion before the magistrate, wait to see which way 12 the wind was blowing, and—having received an unfavorable recommendation—shift gears 13 before the district judge.”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 14 2003) (“Finally, it merits re-emphasis that the underlying purpose of the Federal 15 Magistrates Act is to improve the effective administration of justice.”).2 16 As to the objections filed by Petitioner, the Court has conducted a de novo review 17 of the record. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“Within fourteen days after being served with 18 [the Report and Recommendation], any party may serve and file written objections to such 19 proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court 20 shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed 21 findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, 22 reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the 23 magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to 24 the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 25 In addition to reviewing the Report and Recommendation and any objections and 26 responsive briefing thereto, the Court’s de novo review of the record includes review of the 27 2 Assuming, arguendo, that such matters were not subject to waiver, the Court (in the alternative) has nonetheless conducted a de novo review, and upon review of the record 28 and authority herein, rejects these issues and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety. 1 record and authority before United States Magistrate Judge Macdonald which led to the 2 Report and Recommendation in this case. 3 Upon de novo review of the record and authority herein, the Court finds Petitioner’s 4 objections to be without merit, rejects those objections, and adopts United States 5 Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. See, e.g., 6 United States v. Rodriguez, 888 F.2d 519, 522 (7th Cir. 1989) (“Rodriguez is entitled by 7 statute to de novo review of the subject. Under Raddatz [447 U.S. 667 (1980)] the court 8 may provide this on the record compiled by the magistrate. Rodriguez treats adoption of 9 the magistrate's report as a sign that he has not received his due. Yet we see no reason to 10 infer abdication from adoption. On occasion this court affirms a judgment on the basis of 11 the district court's opinion. Affirming by adoption does not imply that we have neglected 12 our duties; it means, rather, that after independent review we came to the same conclusions 13 as the district judge for the reasons that judge gave, rendering further explanation otiose. 14 When the district judge, after reviewing the record in the light of the objections to the 15 report, reaches the magistrate's conclusions for the magistrate's reasons, it makes sense to 16 adopt the report, sparing everyone another round of paper.”); Bratcher v. Bray-Doyle 17 Independent School Dist. No. 42 of Stephens County, Okl., 8 F.3d 722, 724 (10th Cir. 1993) 18 (“De novo review is statutorily and constitutionally required when written objections to a 19 magistrate's report are timely filed with the district court . . . The district court's duty in this 20 regard is satisfied only by considering the actual testimony [or other relevant evidence in 21 the record], and not by merely reviewing the magistrate's report and recommendations . . . 22 On the other hand, we presume the district court knew of these requirements, so the express 23 references to de novo review in its order must be taken to mean it properly considered the 24 pertinent portions of the record, absent some clear indication otherwise . . . Plaintiff 25 contends . . . the district court's [terse] order indicates the exercise of less than de novo 26 review . . . [However,] brevity does not warrant look[ing] behind a district court's express 27 statement that it engaged in a de novo review of the record.”); Murphy v. International 28 Business Machines Corp., 23 F.3d 719, 722 (2nd Cir. 1994) (“We . . . reject Murphy's 1 procedural challenges to the granting of summary judgment . . . Murphy's contention that 2 the district judge did not properly consider her objections to the magistrate judge's report . 3 . . lacks merit. The judge's brief order mentioned that objections had been made and 4 overruled. We do not construe the brevity of the order as an indication that the objections 5 were not given due consideration, especially in light of the correctness of that report and 6 the evident lack of merit in Murphy's objections.”); Gonzales-Perez v. Harper, 241 F.3d 7 633 (8th Cir. 2001) (“When a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and 8 recommendation, the district court is required to make a de novo review of the record 9 related to the objections, which requires more than merely reviewing the report and 10 recommendation . . . This court presumes that the district court properly performs its review 11 and will affirm the district court's approval of the magistrate's recommendation absent 12 evidence to the contrary . . . The burden is on the challenger to make a prima facie case 13 that de novo review was not had.”); Brunig v. Clark, 560 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 2009) 14 (“Brunig also claims that the district court judge did not review the magistrate's report de 15 novo . . . There is no evidence that the district court did not conduct a de novo review. 16 Without any evidence to the contrary . . . we will not assume that the district court did not 17 conduct the proper review.”).3 18 3 See also Pinkston v. Madry, 440 F.3d 879, 893-894 (7th Cir. 2006) (the district court's assurance, in a written order, that the court has complied with the de novo review 19 requirements of the statute in reviewing the magistrate judge's proposed findings and recommendation is sufficient, in all but the most extraordinary of cases, to resist assault on 20 appeal; emphasizing that “[i]t is clear that Pinkston's argument in this regard is nothing more than a collateral attack on the magistrate's reasoning, masquerading as an assault on 21 the district court's entirely acceptable decision to adopt the magistrate's opinion . . .”); Garcia v. City of Albuquerque, 232 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2000) (“The district court's order 22 is terse . . . However, neither 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) nor Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) requires the district court to make any specific findings; the district court must merely conduct a de 23 novo review of the record . . . It is common practice among district judges . . . to [issue a terse order stating that it conducted a de novo review as to objections] . . . and adopt the 24 magistrate judges' recommended dispositions when they find that magistrate judges have dealt with the issues fully and accurately and that they could add little of value to that 25 analysis. We cannot interpret the district court's [terse] statement as establishing that it failed to perform the required de novo review . . . We hold that although the district court's 26 decision is terse, this is insufficient to demonstrate that the court failed to review the magistrate's recommendation de novo.”); Goffman v. Gross, 59 F.3d 668, 671 (7th Cir. 27 1995) (“The district court is required to conduct a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge's report and recommendations to which objections have been filed. 28 But this de novo determination is not the same as a de novo hearing . . . [I]f following a review of the record the district court is satisfied with the magistrate judge's findings and □□ CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 3 (1) United States Magistrate Judge Macdonald’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 4 37) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. 5 (2) Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 6 Person in Federal Custody is denied. 7 (3) This case is dismissed with prejudice. 8 (4) The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case. 9 10 Dated this 25th day of June, 2021. 11 A ashe. Honorable James A. Soto 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 recommendations it may in its discretion treat those findings and recommendations as its 28 own.”). _5-