Sharp v. Ryan
Filing
15
ORDER ADOPTING 13 Magistrate Judge Aspey'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 Se ction 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Clerk shall terminate this actionand enter judgment. Signed by Judge Diane J Humetewa on 8/6/14. (LSP)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Jason Lawrence Sharp,
Petitioner,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV-13-08163-PHX-DJH
Charles L. Ryan,
13
Respondent.
14
15
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
16
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
17
issued by United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey (Doc. 13). In his one claim for
18
relief in the Petition, Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel provided ineffective
19
assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment when he failed
20
to call as witnesses Petitioner’s three children, his nephew and his cousin, who he claims
21
were present at the time he committed the offenses for which he was convicted. After a
22
thorough analysis, Judge Aspey determined that the Arizona state courts’ rejection of
23
Petitioner’s claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of the standard set
24
forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accordingly, Judge Aspey
25
recommends the Petition be denied.
26
Judge Aspey advised the parties that they had fourteen day to file objections and
27
that the failure to file timely objections “will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to
28
de novo appellate consideration of the issues.” (Doc. 13 at 11-12) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.
1
72(b) and United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)).
2
The parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent any
3
objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the
4
R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the
5
Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any
6
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328
7
F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo
8
any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”).
9
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and
10
recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See
11
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
12
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”);
13
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).
14
Accordingly,
15
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Aspey’s R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted and
16
17
18
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.
19
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing
20
Section 2254 Cases, a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis
21
on appeal are denied because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial
22
of a constitutional right.
23
24
25
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action
and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 6th day of August, 2014.
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?