Rutledge #142462 v. Thornell et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Before the Court is Petitioner’s Amended Petition1 for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 6), the Answer from the Respondents (Doc. 15), and a
Reply from the Petitioner (Doc. 16). Also pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion
to Stay Proceedings Pending Exhaustion of State-Court Remedies (Doc. 3), the Response
(Doc. 14), and Petitioner’s Reply (Doc. 16). Additionally, the Court has also considered
the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 17) and
Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 18).
A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a
timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R
that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires
specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United
1 The Petition was originally filed on June 4, 2025. (Doc. 1).
Jermaine Lamar Rutledge,
Petitioner,
vs.
Ryan Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-25-01947-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Case 2:25-cv-01947-SPL Document 19 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It
follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific
objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial
economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or
arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s
decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622
(9th Cir. 2000).
The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently
developed record. The Petitioner’s nine objections to the findings and recommendations
have also been thoroughly considered.
After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches
the same conclusions reached by the Magistrate Judge. In addition, the Court has
considered Petitioner’s renewed request for appointment of counsel, contained in his
Objections (Doc. 18 at 11–12), and will deny the request for the same reasons that the Court
denied Petitioner’s initial request for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 9 at 2–3). The R&R
will be adopted in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 17) is
accepted and adopted by the Court;
2. That the Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 18) are overruled;
3. That Petitioner’s Renewed Request for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 18 at
11–12) is denied;
4. That Petitioner’s Motion to Stay (Doc. 3) is denied;
5. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 6) is denied, and
this action is dismissed with prejudice.
6. That a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis
Case 2:25-cv-01947-SPL Document 19 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
on appeal are denied; and
7. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this
action.
Dated this 27th day of March, 2026.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01947-SPL Document 19 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 3