Cafaro v. Shinn

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

9 Steven Edward Cafaro, No. CV-19-00463-TUC-SHR 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Charles L Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents.

16 On July 27, 2020, Magistrate Judge Maria S. Aguilera issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 15) in which she recommended the Court deny Petitioner Steven Cafaro’s amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”) (Doc. 5). Petitioner filed an Objection to the R&R (Doc. 17), to which the Respondents filed a response (Doc. 19).

21 The Court has reviewed the Petition (Doc. 5), Respondents’ Answer (Doc. 11), Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 14), Judge Aguilera’s R&R (Doc. 15), Petitioner’s Objection to the R&R (Doc. 17), and Respondents’ Response to Petitioner’s Objection (Doc. 19). The Court finds Petitioner’s objections do not undermine Judge Aguilera’s analysis and proper conclusions. The Court further finds the R&R well-reasoned and agrees with Judge Aguilera’s conclusions.

27 The Court has reviewed the record and finds Magistrate Judge Aguilera’s recommendations are not clearly erroneous, and they are adopted. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; Johnson v. Zema Sys. Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 2|| 1999): Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).

3 Before Petitioner can appeal this Court's judgment, a certificate of appealability must issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1). When denying a petition || made pursuant to § 2254, the district court must either issue a certificate of appealability || or state why a certificate should not issue. See id. Additionally, § 2253(c)(2) provides a certificate may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of || a constitutional right.” A substantial showing is made when the resolution of an issue of 9|| appeal is debatable among reasonable jurists, if courts could resolve the issues differently, || or if “the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” || See Slack vy. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000) (internal citations omitted). Having || reviewed the record, and in light of the standards for granting a certificate of appealability, 13} the Court concludes a certificate shall not issue as the resolution of the petition is not || debatable among reasonable jurists and does not merit further proceedings.

15 Accordingly, 16 IT IS ORDERED the R&R is ADOPTED (Doc. 15) and Steven Cafaro’s amended || Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 5) is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court shall docket accordingly and close the case file in || this matter.

20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED and shall not issue.

22 Dated this 9th day of September, 2020.

26 ~ 4 Honorable Scott H. Rash _/ United States District Judge _2-