Kensey v. Ryan

Filing 16

ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: 1. That Magistrate Judge Duncan's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15 ) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 2. That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended (Doc. 6 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice; 3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied; and 4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 5/28/15. (LAD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 Kenneth Ramon Kensey, 9 10 Petitioner, vs. 11 12 13 14 Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV-14-02051-PHX-SPL ORDER 15 Petitioner Kenneth Ramon Kensey has filed an Amended Petition for Writ of 16 Habeas Corpus pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 6). The Honorable David 17 K. Duncan, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation 18 (“R&R”) (Doc. 15), recommending that the Court deny the Petition. Judge Duncan 19 advised the parties that they had fourteen (14) days to file objections to the R&R and that 20 failure to file timely objections could be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review 21 of the R&R. (Doc. 15) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; United States 22 v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 23 The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 24 review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 25 (1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 26 not the subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must 27 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 28 objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is well- 1 taken. The Court will adopt the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 2 (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 3 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 4 district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 5 evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). Accordingly, 6 IT IS ORDERED: 7 1. 8 9 10 11 12 That Magistrate Judge Duncan’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 15) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 2. That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, as amended (Doc. 6) is denied and dismissed with prejudice; 3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied; and 13 4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 14 Dated this 28th day of May, 2015. 15 16 Honorable Steven P. Logan United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?