Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00899/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00899-1/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 

John Balla Pierce, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00899-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Before the Court are Petitioner John Balla Pierce’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’ Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). (Docs. 1, 21.) The R&R recommends that the Court deny 

the Petition. (Doc. 21 at 13.) The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could 

be considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. (Id. at 13-14 (citing 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

 Petitioner did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to 

review the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 

(1985) (“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is 

not the subject of an objection.”); 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.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellCase 2:15-cv-00899-DLR Document 22 Filed 03/18/16 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 

taken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

(stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 

findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The 

district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further 

evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Burns’ R&R, (Doc. 21), is ACCEPTED. 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (Doc. 1), is DENIED and DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 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, and because the 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 the Court shall terminate this 

case. 

 Dated this 18th day of March, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00899-DLR Document 22 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 2