Sharp v. Ryan
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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jason Lawrence Sharp,
Charles L. Ryan,
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”)
issued by United States Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey (Doc. 13). In his one claim for
relief in the Petition, Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel provided ineffective
assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment when he failed
to call as witnesses Petitioner’s three children, his nephew and his cousin, who he claims
were present at the time he committed the offenses for which he was convicted. After a
thorough analysis, Judge Aspey determined that the Arizona state courts’ rejection of
Petitioner’s claim was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of the standard set
forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accordingly, Judge Aspey
recommends the Petition be denied.
Judge Aspey advised the parties that they had fourteen day to file objections and
that the failure to file timely objections “will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to
de novo appellate consideration of the issues.” (Doc. 13 at 11-12) (citing Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b) and United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)).
The parties have not filed objections and the time to do so has expired. Absent any
objections, the Court is not required to review the findings and recommendations in the
R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1989) (The relevant provision of the
Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), “does not on its face require any
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”); Reyna-Tapia, 328
F.3d at 1121 (same); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de novo
any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”).
Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with its findings and
recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3) (same).
IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Aspey’s R&R (Doc. 13) is accepted 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.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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 Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action
and enter judgment accordingly.
Dated this 6th day of August, 2014.
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?