Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01774/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-01774-1/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 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Anthony J Gonsalves, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-16-01774-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on pro se 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) of United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade, filed on 

December 22, 2016. The Petitioner asserts a single claim for relief based upon the 

alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. Judge Bade soundly reasoned that this 

claim lacks merit. Hence, she recommends denial of the Petition and dismissal with 

prejudice. 

 In so recommending, Judge Bade explicitly advised the parties that they had 

“fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of” the R&R “within which to file 

specific written objections with the Court.” (Doc. 14 at 8:10-11) (citations omitted). 

Judge Bade further explicitly advised that “[f]ailure to file timely objections to the” R&R 

“may result in the acceptance of the [R&R] by the District Court without further review.” 

(Id. at 8:13-15) (citation omitted). Judge Bade was equally explicit that “[f]ailure to file 

timely objections to any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered 

Case 2:16-cv-01774-DJH Document 15 Filed 01/25/17 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 

a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 

judgment entered pursuant to the” R&R. (Id. at 8:16-19) (citation omitted). 

 In accordance with the foregoing, the parties had until January 4, 2017 by which to 

timely file objections to the R&R. The parties did not do so. Absent any timely 

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.”); United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (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 that Magistrate Judge Bade’s R&R (Doc. 14) is accepted and 

adopted as an Order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for 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, in part, because 

reasonable jurists could not find that the Court’s determination that Petitioner is not 

entitled to relief debatable, wrong, or deserving of encouragement to proceed further. See 

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003). Petitioner also has not made the required 

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

2253(c)(2)). 

Case 2:16-cv-01774-DJH Document 15 Filed 01/25/17 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 FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 25th day of January, 2017. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-01774-DJH Document 15 Filed 01/25/17 Page 3 of 3