Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08229/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08229-1/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

Robert LaRue Brown, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-14-8229-PCT-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 Bridget S. Bade (Doc. 13). Pursuant to a plea 

agreement, Petitioner pled guilty to and was convicted of one count of manslaughter and 

one count of theft of means of transportation. (Doc. 13 at 2-3). He was sentenced to 21 

years in prison on the manslaughter conviction and a concurrent term of four years in 

prison on the theft conviction. (Doc. 13 at 3). He raised five grounds for relief in the 

Petition, including ineffective assistance of trial counsel, improper consideration of 

aggravating factors by the trial court, erroneous finding by the trial court that the murder 

was cruel, heinous, or depraved, unlawful determination of aggravating factors by the 

trial court rather than a jury, and ineffective assistance during Petitioner's "of-right" postconviction relief proceeding. (Doc. 13 at 4). After consideration of the issues, Judge 

Bade concluded that the Petitioner's claims are time-barred because he failed to file the 

Petition within the one-year statute of limitations period, which expired on December 27, 

Case 3:14-cv-08229-DJH Document 14 Filed 06/30/15 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 

2007. (Doc. 13 at 15). The Petition was filed nearly seven years too late and there was 

no basis for tolling the limitations period. (Doc. 13 at 5-13). Accordingly, Judge Bade 

recommends the Petition be denied. (Doc. 13 at 15). 

 Judge Bade 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. 13 at 16) (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 Bade's R&R (Doc. 13) 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. 

Case 3:14-cv-08229-DJH Document 14 Filed 06/30/15 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 29th day of June, 2015. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 3:14-cv-08229-DJH Document 14 Filed 06/30/15 Page 3 of 3