Pina-Aguirre v. Ryan et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, accepting and adopting, as an Order of this Court, Magistrate Judge Aspey's 20 Report and Recommendation; denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 ; pursuant to R ule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right; the Clerk shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 1/6/15. (REW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Genaro Evenicio Pina-Aguirre, 10 Petitioner, 11 ORDER v. 12 No. CV-14-00860-PHX-DJH Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 16 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 17 issued by United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey (Doc. 20). 18 asserts three grounds for relief. First, Petitioner contends that state trial court should 19 have, sua sponte, conducted a voluntariness hearing prior to admitting as evidence 20 Petitioner's post-arrest statements to the police. Second, the Petitioner claims that he was 21 denied effective assistance of counsel because his counsel did not: 22 voluntariness hearing; (2) challenge the victim's identification of him; and (3) did not 23 impeach a detective with an interview transcript. Third, the Petitioner maintains that by 24 not retrieving fingerprints and DNA evidence, "the police conducted a 'faulty 25 investigation[.]'" R&R (Doc. 20) at 15:6 (emphasis omitted). The Petitioner (1) request a 26 After carefully considering each of these three claims, see id. at 9-16, Magistrate 27 Judge Aspey soundly concluded that "[t]he state court's last reasoned decision denying 28 [Petitioner's] claims was not clearly contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal 1 law." (Id. at 16:16-17). 2 In recommending denial of the Petition and dismissal with prejudice, Magistrate 3 Judge Aspey explicitly advised the parties that they had "fourteen (14) days from the date 4 of service of a copy of" that R&R "within which to file specific objections with the 5 Court." R&R (Doc. 20) at 16:24-25. Further, Magistrate Judge Aspey explicitly advised 6 that "[f]ailure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 7 Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to do novo appellate 8 consideration of those issues." (Id. at 17:2-4) (citing United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 9 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The Magistrate Judge was equally explicit 10 that "[f]ailure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 11 Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 12 findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the 13 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge." (Id. at 17:5-8). 14 The parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent 15 any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in 16 the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the 17 Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any 18 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328 19 F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo 20 any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”). 21 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and 22 recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R, deny the Petition and 23 dismiss this matter with prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court 24 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made 25 by the magistrate judge.”); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same). 26 Accordingly, 27 IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING as an Order of this Court 28 Magistrate Judge Aspey's R&R (Doc. 20); -2- 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING AND DISMISSING WITH 2 PREJUDICE the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 3 1); 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing 5 Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis 6 on appeal are DENIED because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 7 denial of a constitutional right; and 8 9 10 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Dated this 6th day of January, 2015. 11 12 13 Honorable Diane J. Humetewa United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?