Abdulla #271958 v. Ryan et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Burns' 29 Report and Recommendation. The Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 15 ) is denied and dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to Rule 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 dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and ju rists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and 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 4/26/17. (DXD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Haider H. Abdulla,

No. CV-15-01487-PHX-DJH
Petitioner,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

13

Respondents.

14
15
16

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

17

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 15) and the Report and

18

Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns

19

(Doc. 29). Following a jury trial in January and February 2012, Petitioner was convicted

20

of two counts of first-degree murder. (Doc. 15 at 3). He was sentenced to consecutive

21

life terms in prison with the possibility of parole after 25 years. (Id.). Petitioner raised

22

four grounds for relief in the Petition, including an alleged violation of his Miranda rights

23

in Ground One, and several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in Grounds Two,

24

Three and Four. (Doc. 15 at 5-6). After consideration of the issues, Judge Burns

25

concluded that Petitioner's Miranda claim lacks merit, and that the remaining claims of

26

ineffective assistance of counsel are procedurally defaulted.

27

Accordingly, Judge Burns recommends the Petition be denied and dismissed with

28

prejudice. (Id.).

(Doc. 15 at 28).

1

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

2

that the failure to file timely objections "may result in the acceptance of the Report and

3

Recommendation by the district court without further review." (Doc. 15 at 28-29) (citing

4

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). Petitioner

5

has not filed an objection and the time to do so has expired. Respondents have also not

6

filed an objection. Absent any objections, the Court is not required to review the findings

7

and recommendations in the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The

8

relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on

9

its face require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”);

10

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must

11

determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly

12

objected to.”).

13

Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed Judge Burns’ comprehensive and well-

14

reasoned R&R and agrees with its findings and recommendations. The Court will,

15

therefore, accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge

16

of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

17

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

18

Accordingly,

19

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R (Doc. 29) is accepted and

20

adopted as the order of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

21
22

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 15) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

23

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

24

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

25

on appeal are denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural

26

bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and Petitioner

27

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

28

....

-2-

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action
and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 26th day of April, 2017.

4
5
6

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-