Panasewicz v. Hacker-Agnew

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Thomas N Panasewicz, No. CV-19-00401-PHX-ROS 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Carla Hacker-Agnew, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf recommends Petitioner Thomas N Panasewicz’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 19.)

17 Petitioner filed objections, and Respondents responded. (Docs. 20, 21.)

18 After issuance of the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), Petitioner had fourteen days to “file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”

20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The Court is required to conduct a de novo review of “any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). But the Court need not conduct such a review of any portion of the R&R where there are no objections or where the objections are “general and non-specific.” See, e.g., Augustiniak v. Ryan, No. CV-18-03977-PHX-DWL, 2020 WL 1685556, at *2 (D. Ariz. Apr. 7, 2020) (“D]istrict judges need not review an objection to an R&R that is general and non-specific.”) (citing Warling v. Ryan, No. CV-12-1396-PHX-DGC, 2013 WL 5276367, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 2013), Markland v. Ryan, No. CV-14-02563-PHX-SMM, 2018 28 WL 1382525, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2018) (“An ineffective general objection has the || same effect as a failure to object.”)).

2 Here, Petitioner did not present any specific objections to the R&R, but merely || complained that following the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations “would have the Court 4|| leap onto a slippery slope that leads inevitably to totalitarianism”; accused the Magistrate 5|| Judge, “all of the appointed lawyers,” and “the lower courts” of “disregard for the || Constitution and Rules of Court”; and concluded “Petitioner is so disgusted by the perfidy 7\| of James Metcalf’s reasoning that it is impossible to continue.” (Doc. 20 at 2—3.) These || general and non-specific objections that are without any basis in law do not require the □□ Court to independently review the R&R. Therefore, the R&R will be adopted in full.

10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED.

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Ground | of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ || of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

14 IT IS FURTHER ordered the remainder of Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ || of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5), including Grounds 2, 3, and 4, is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED because || dismissal of portions of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of || reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable and because the portions of the || petition not procedurally barred do not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

22 Dated this 22nd day of May, 2020.

23 fo .

24 — 26 Senior United States District Judge _2-