Wilson v. Ryan et al

Filing 15

ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14 ) is accepted and adopted by the Court. FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custod y is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the dismissal of the petitioner's habeas p etition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 3/3/2014. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Robert Andrew Wilson,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

vs.
Charles Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-13-00383-PHX-PGR (DKD)
ORDER

16

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

17

Judge Duncan notwithstanding that no party has filed an objection to the Report and

18

Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined

19

that the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, filed on February 22, 2013 pursuant to

20

28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed as time-barred because it was filed nine

21

years after the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations expired on February 26,

22

2004, and the petitioner has made no showing that the limitations period should be

23

equitably tolled. Therefore,

24
25
26

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 14) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §

1

2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that

2

this action is dismissed with prejudice.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and

4

that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because the dismissal

5

of the petitioner’s habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of

6

reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 3rd day of March, 2014.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-