Jack v. Ryan et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING 17 The Magistrate Judge's Report and the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that n o certificate of appealability shall issue and that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because dismissal of the habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/16/16. (LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

William Carl Jack, Jr.,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14
15

vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-15-01598-PHX-PGR (MHB)
ORDER

16

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

17

Judge Burns notwithstanding that no party has filed any objection to the Report and

18

Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined

19

that the petitioner’s habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be

20

dismissed with prejudice because the petitioner did not exhaust any of the claims

21

raised in his habeas petition and he has not demonstrated either cause or prejudice

22

to excuse his procedural default, and he has not shown any fundamental

23

miscarriage of justice, and he has not raised a Martinez claim. Therefore,

24
25
26

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 17) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. §

1

2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and is

2

dismissed with prejudice.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and

4

that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because dismissal of the habeas

5

petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the

6

procedural ruling debatable.

7
8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 16th day of August, 2016.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-