Long v. Ryan et al
Filing
17
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 . It is further ordered the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED and the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 3/31/15. (See attached PDF for complete information.) (KAH)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
John L.J. Long,
Petitioner,
10
11
vs.
12
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 11-686-TUC-FRZ
ORDER
14
15
Before the Court for consideration is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus brought
16
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, pro se, by Petitioner John L.J. Long, who is confined in the
17
Arizona State Prison Complex, Winchester Unit, in Tucson, Arizona and the Report and
18
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle, recommending that the District Court,
19
after its independent review, deny the Petition.
20
Petitioner was convicted in Pima County Superior Court of three counts of armed
21
robbery, theft of the means of transportation, and two counts of robbery. He was sentenced
22
to a term of a total of 21.75 years of imprisonment.
23
Petitioner raises six grounds for relief: Grounds One through Four allege that
24
Petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth and Fourteenth
25
Amendment rights. Grounds Five and Six, allege violations of Petitioner’s Due Process
26
rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments based on the imposition of consecutive
27
sentences and consideration of invalid factors at sentencing.
28
Respondents filed an answer to the Petition, to which Petitioner filed a reply.
1
This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle, pursuant to the
2
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Rule 72, Fed.R.Civ.P., and Local Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of
3
the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, for
4
further proceedings and Report and Recommendation.
5
Magistrate Judge Pyle issued his Report and Recommendation, recommending:
6
. . . that the District Court, after its independent review, enter an Order: (1)
finding that Petitioner’s federal habeas petition was timely filed; (2) denying
Petitioner’s Grounds One through Four on the merits; and (3) finding that
Grounds Five and Six are not cognizable grounds for federal habeas relief but
if considered as cognizable claims, denying Grounds Five and Six on the
merits.
7
8
9
10
The Report and Recommendation sets forth a thorough factual background and legal
11
12
analysis of the claims and standards at issue.
13
The Report and Recommendation further advised, in relevant part, that:
14
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), any party may serve and file written objections
within fourteen (14) days of being served with a copy of the Report and
Recommendation.. . . If objections are not timely filed, they may be deemed
waived.. . .
15
16
17
18
No objections were filed.
19
The Court finds, after consideration of all matters presented and an independent
20
review of the record herein, including the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of
21
Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1); Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 11); Reply to
22
Respondents Answer (Doc. 13) and the Report and Recommendation (Doc 16), that the
23
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus shall be denied and this action be dismissed in
24
accordance with the Report and Recommendation.
25
Based on the foregoing,
26
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) is
27
hereby ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and conclusions of law by this
28
Court;
-2-
1
2
3
4
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)
is DENIED and this action is hereby DISMISSED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment
accordingly.
5
6
DATED this 31st day of March, 2015.
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?