Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00860/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00860-1/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 

Genaro Evenicio Pina-Aguirre,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-14-00860-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. 20). The Petitioner 

asserts three grounds for relief. First, Petitioner contends that state trial court should 

have, sua sponte, conducted a voluntariness hearing prior to admitting as evidence 

Petitioner's post-arrest statements to the police. Second, the Petitioner claims that he was 

denied effective assistance of counsel because his counsel did not: (1) request a 

voluntariness hearing; (2) challenge the victim's identification of him; and (3) did not 

impeach a detective with an interview transcript. Third, the Petitioner maintains that by 

not retrieving fingerprints and DNA evidence, "the police conducted a 'faulty 

investigation[.]'" R&R (Doc. 20) at 15:6 (emphasis omitted). 

 After carefully considering each of these three claims, see id. at 9-16, Magistrate 

Judge Aspey soundly concluded that "[t]he state court's last reasoned decision denying 

[Petitioner's] claims was not clearly contrary to nor an unreasonable application of federal 

Case 2:14-cv-00860-DJH Document 21 Filed 01/07/15 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

law." (Id. at 16:16-17). 

 In recommending denial of the Petition and dismissal with prejudice, Magistrate 

Judge Aspey explicitly advised the parties that they had "fourteen (14) days from the date 

of service of a copy of" that R&R "within which to file specific objections with the 

Court." R&R (Doc. 20) at 16:24-25. Further, Magistrate Judge Aspey explicitly advised 

that "[f]ailure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party's right to do novo appellate 

consideration of those issues." (Id. at 17:2-4) (citing United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 

F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc)). The Magistrate Judge was equally explicit 

that "[f]ailure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge will constitute a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 

findings of fact and conclusions of law in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the 

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge." (Id. at 17:5-8). 

 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, deny the Petition and 

dismiss this matter with prejudice. 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 ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING as an Order of this Court 

Magistrate Judge Aspey's R&R (Doc. 20);

Case 2:14-cv-00860-DJH Document 21 Filed 01/07/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

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 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING AND DISMISSING WITH 

PREJUDICE the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 

1); 

 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; and 

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

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 6th day of January, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-00860-DJH Document 21 Filed 01/07/15 Page 3 of 3