Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00660/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-00660-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

James Ervin Kynard,

Petitioner,

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al.,

Respondents.

No. CV-19-00660-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”) 

(Doc. 14) issued by United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle. 

Petitioner filed his federal habeas corpus petition on February 1, 2019 (Doc. 1). 

Respondents filed a Limited Answer on July 19, 2019 (Doc. 13). Petitioner did not file a 

Reply. On February 3, 2020, Magistrate Judge Boyle found Petitioner’s federal habeas 

Petition to be untimely without excuse, and recommended Petitioner’s claims be denied 

and dismissed with prejudice (Doc. 14). Judge Boyle advised the parties that they had 

fourteen days to file objections and that failure to do so “may result in the acceptance of 

the Report and Recommendation by the district court without further review.” (Doc. 14 at 

6) (citing United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). 

Petitioner has not filed an objection and the time to do so has expired. Respondents have 

also not filed an objection. 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) 

Case 2:19-cv-00660-DJH Document 15 Filed 05/19/20 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

(noting that the relevant provision of the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), 

“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 Judge Boyle’s well-reasoned R&R and agrees 

with its findings and recommendations. The Court will, therefore, accept the R&R and 

dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“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 Boyle’s R&R (Doc. 14) 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 18th day of May, 2020.

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge

Case 2:19-cv-00660-DJH Document 15 Filed 05/19/20 Page 2 of 2