Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01891/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01891-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Johannes Jonge Vos,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-13-01891-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 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 David K. Duncan (Doc. 18). Pursuant to plea 

agreements, Petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of sexual 

exploitation of a minor and one count of attempted sexual exploitation of a minor. (Doc. 

18 at 2). He was sentenced to 17 years in prison on the first conviction and lifetime 

probation on the second. (Id.). He raised three grounds for relief in the Petition, 

including ineffective assistance of counsel, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and 

prosecutorial misconduct. (Doc. 18 at 3). After consideration of the issues, Judge 

Duncan concluded that the Petitioner's claims are procedurally barred because he failed to 

fairly present them to the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Doc. 18 at 4-6). Accordingly, 

Judge Duncan recommends the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 18 at 6). 

 Judge Duncan advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 

that the failure to file timely objections "may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Case 2:13-cv-01891-DJH Document 19 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Recommendation by the district court without further review." (Doc. 18 at 7) (citing 

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). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Duncan's R&R (Doc. 18) 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 dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural 

bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 22nd day of May, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-01891-DJH Document 19 Filed 05/22/15 Page 2 of 2