Moore 295490 v. Ryan ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Lancer James Moore, No. CV-18-1208-PHX-JGZ 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Charles Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by United States 16 Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro. (Doc 16.) Magistrate Judge Ferraro recommends 17 dismissing Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus because Petitioner’s 18 claims are procedurally defaulted without excuse. (Id.) 19 The parties have not filed any objections to the Report and Recommendation and 20 the time to file objections has expired. As such, the Court will not consider any objections 21 or new evidence. 22 Upon review of the record, the Court will adopt Magistrate Judge Ferraro’s 23 recommendations. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 24 140, 149–54 (1985). 25 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court’s judgment, a certificate of appealability 26 (COA) must issue. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1); Rule 11(a) of the 27 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. “The district court must issue or deny a certification 28 of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may || issue only when the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the denial of a 3 || constitutional right.” The court must indicate which specific issues satisfy this showing. See 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(3). With respect to claims rejected on the merits, a petitioner “must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 7\| For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate whether 8 || the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the □□□□□□ || procedural ruling was correct. Jd. Upon review of the record in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, the Court concludes that a certificate shall not issue, 11 || as the resolution of the petition is not debatable among reasonable jurists. Accordingly, 12 IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 16 The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this action. 17 Dated this 22nd day of July, 2019. 18 19 20 pots Sype 1 Honorable Jennifer“ Zipps United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-