Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01547/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01547-0/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

Tony Jeremiah Edwards, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-14-1547-PHX-DJH

ORDER 

 This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(the "Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and the Report and 

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

(Doc. 18). Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pled guilty to, and was convicted of, 

one count of drive-by shooting and one count of discharging a firearm at a structure. 

(Doc. 18 at 3). The stipulated sentence in the plea agreement, which the Superior Court 

Judge imposed, mandated 10 years in prison for the drive-by shooting and a consecutive 

term of 15 years in prison for discharging a firearm at a structure. (Id. at 3-4). 

 Petitioner raised several claims for relief in the Petition, alleging that his rights 

were violated when he failed to receive the Superior Court's orders; that the Pinal County 

Attorney's Office discriminated against him on the basis of race during the plea 

bargaining process; and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his 

lawyer made racist comments to him, failed to investigate alleged defects in the 

indictment, and failed to investigate the racially discriminatory plea bargain process. 

Case 2:14-cv-01547-DJH Document 21 Filed 08/13/15 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 

(Doc. 18 at 5-6). After consideration and analysis of the issues, Judge Duncan concluded 

that Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies for the claims asserted in this 

action, and that he is now barred from doing so. (Id. at 6-7). Accordingly, Judge Duncan 

recommends the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. (Id. at 9). 

 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. 18 at 10) (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. 18) 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 

Case 2:14-cv-01547-DJH Document 21 Filed 08/13/15 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 

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 13th day of August, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01547-DJH Document 21 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 3