Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01077/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01077-0/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Ponsart, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-13-1077-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s second amended Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus (the "Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 19) and the Report 

and Recommendation (“R&R”) issued by United States Magistrate Judge David K. 

Duncan (Doc. 26). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pled no contest to, and was 

convicted of, one count of attempted molestation of a child under 15. (Doc. 26 at 1-2). 

Though he was initially sentenced to lifetime probation, he was later sentenced to 15 

years in prison after his probation was revoked, the maximum term allowed under the 

plea agreement. (Doc. 26 at 2). Petitioner raised only one claim for relief in the Petition, 

asserting that the trial court judge erroneously found aggravating factors that enhanced 

his prison sentence. (Doc. 26 at 3). After consideration of the issues, Judge Duncan 

concluded that Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies for the claim asserted 

in this action, and that he is now barred from doing so. (Doc. 26 at 4-5). Accordingly, 

Case 2:13-cv-01077-DJH Document 27 Filed 07/30/15 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 

Judge Duncan recommends the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 

26 at 5). 

 Judge Duncan advised the parties that they had fourteen days to file objections and 

that the failure to file timely objections "may result in the acceptance of the Report and 

Recommendation by the district court without further review." (Doc. 26 at 5) (citing 

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 Duncan's R&R (Doc. 26) is accepted

and adopted as the order of this Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the second amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 19) 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. 

Case 2:13-cv-01077-DJH Document 27 Filed 07/30/15 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 that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 30th day of July, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-01077-DJH Document 27 Filed 07/30/15 Page 3 of 3