Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02339/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-02339-1/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

Carlos Devon Lewis, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Teresa Schroder, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-13-02339-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 James F. Metcalf (Doc. 35). Following a jury 

trial, Petitioner was convicted of automobile theft, unlawful flight and criminal damage. 

(Doc. 35 at 3). He raised four grounds for relief in the Petition. (Doc. 35 at 6). After a 

thorough analysis, Judge Metcalf concluded that the Petition is untimely and therefore 

barred by the statute of limitations. (Doc. 35 at 28). Accordingly, Judge Metcalf 

recommends the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 35 at 29-30). 

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

that the failure to file timely objections “will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to 

de novo consideration of the issues.” (Doc. 35 at 30) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 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 

Case 2:13-cv-02339-DJH Document 36 Filed 12/02/14 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 

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 Metcalf's R&R (Doc. 35) 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 FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

 Dated this 2nd day of December, 2014. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:13-cv-02339-DJH Document 36 Filed 12/02/14 Page 2 of 2