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-
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?