Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08163/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08163-2/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

Jason Lawrence Sharp, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, 

Respondent. 

No. CV-13-08163-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 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. 

Case 3:13-cv-08163-DJH Document 15 Filed 08/06/14 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 

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). 

 Accordingly, 

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. 

Case 3:13-cv-08163-DJH Document 15 Filed 08/06/14 Page 2 of 2