Garcia v. Ryan et al
Filing
12
ORDER ADOPTING 11 Magistrate Judge Duncan's Report and Recommendation. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing S ection 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 10/22/15. (EJA)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Paul Garcia,
No. CV-15-0127-PHX-DJH
Petitioner,
10
11
v.
12
ORDER
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
(the "Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) filed on January 26, 2015, and the
17
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 11) issued by United States Magistrate
18
Judge David K. Duncan on October 1, 2015. Following a jury trial in May 2012,
19
Petitioner was convicted of one count of disorderly conduct, a “dangerous” offense under
20
Arizona law; two counts of aggravated assault, also dangerous offenses; one count of
21
theft of means of transportation; and one count of unlawful flight from a law enforcement
22
vehicle. (Doc. 11 at 1). Petitioner was sentenced in July 2012 to a combination of
23
concurrent and consecutive sentences totaling 25.75 years in prison. (Id. at 2).
24
Petitioner raised several claims for relief in the Petition, alleging that that he
25
received ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel (1) failed to inform him
26
that a jury could decide aggravating factors, (2) failed to present mitigating evidence at
27
his sentencing, and (3) failed to object to his excessive sentence. Petitioner further
28
alleges that his right to due process was violated when the prosecutor failed to notify the
1
trial court that a DNA test was never performed on a key piece of evidences. (Doc. 11 at
2
3).
3
Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies for the claims asserted in this action,
4
and that he is now barred from doing so. (Id. at 3-5). Accordingly, Judge Duncan
5
recommends the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 5).
After consideration and analysis of the issues, Judge Duncan concluded that
6
Judge Duncan advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and
7
that the failure to file timely objections "may result in the acceptance of the Report and
8
Recommendation by the district court without further review." (Doc. 11 at 5) (citing
9
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The
10
parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired.
Absent any
11
objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the
12
R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the
13
Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any
14
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328
15
F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo
16
any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”).
17
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and
18
recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See
19
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
20
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”);
21
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).
22
Accordingly,
23
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Duncan's R&R (Doc. 11) is accepted
24
25
26
and adopted as the order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.
27
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
28
Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis
-2-
1
on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural
2
bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable.
3
4
5
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action
and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 22nd day of October, 2015.
6
7
8
9
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
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?