Harris #198341 v. Ryan et al

Filing 33

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING the 32 Report and Recommendation as an Order of this Court. ORDERED DENYING AND DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED. ORDERED the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 2/13/2015. (LFIG)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Shaun Michael Harris,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-01888-PHX-DJH

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

15

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)

16

issued by United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 32).

17

asserts seven grounds for relief. After a thorough analysis, Judge Burns made the

18

following determinations. As to ground one, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation

19

based upon the search and seizure of Petitioner's cell phone, Judge Burns found that it

20

was not cognizable on federal habeas review because Petitioner had a full and fair

21

opportunity to litigate that constitutional claim in the Arizona state courts. Judge Burns

22

likewise found that Petitioner did not state a basis for federal habeas review with respect

23

to grounds two, five and six because each "challenge[d] the state court's application of the

24

Arizona Rules of Evidence and Arizona's statutory sentencing scheme[,]" rather than

25

alleging federal constitutional or statutory violations. Pet. (Doc. 32) at 8:6-7.

The Petition

26

Petitioner's remaining grounds, three, four and seven, Judge Burns found, failed on

27

the merits. In each, Petitioner alleged that he received ineffective assistance of counsel

28

("IAC") for a variety of reasons.

As Judge Burns soundly reasoned, "[b]ecause

1

Petitioner has not demonstrated that trial counsel's performance was deficient or that he

2

was prejudiced as a result, the state court's rejection of Ground Three was not an

3

unreasonable application of Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)]." Pet.

4

(Doc. 32) at 13:12-14. Judge Burns also found grounds four and seven to be without

5

merit because Plaintiff did not carry his burden under Strickland.

6

In recommending denial of the Petition and dismissal with prejudice, Judge Burns

7

expressly advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and that the

8

failure to file timely objections “may result in the acceptance of the [R & R] by the

9

district court without further review." Pet. (Doc. 32) at 16:1-2) (citing United States v.

10

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). She further advised the parties that

11

"[f]ailure timely to file objections to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge

12

will be will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of

13

fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s

14

recommendation." (Id. at 16:3-6) (citing Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

15

The parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent

16

any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in

17

the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the

18

Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any

19

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328

20

F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo

21

any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”).

22

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and

23

recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R, deny the Petition and

24

dismiss this matter with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court

25

may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made

26

by the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).

27

Accordingly,

28

IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING as an order of this Court

-2-

1

Magistrate Judge Burns' R&R (Doc. 32).

2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING AND DISMISSING WITH

3

PREJUDICE the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc.

4

1).

5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing

6

Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

7

on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the

8

denial of a constitutional right.

9
10
11

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action
and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 13th day of February, 2015.

12
13
14
15

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-