Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01814/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-01814-1/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NOT FOR PUBLICATION 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 

Jorge Hernandez-Roque, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-01814-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. 18) of United States Magistrate Judge Eileen S. Willett, filed on May 27, 

2016. The Petitioner asserts four grounds for relief based upon the alleged ineffective 

assistance of his trial counsel. After a thorough and sound analysis, Judge Willett found 

all four grounds were meritless. Judge Willett thus recommends denial of the Petition 

and dismissal with prejudice. 

 In so recommending, Judge Willett 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. 18 at 15:25-26) (citations omitted). 

Judge Willett 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 15:28-16:1-2). Judge Willett was equally explicit that “[f]ailure to file 

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

Case 2:14-cv-01814-DJH Document 19 Filed 06/14/16 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 16:2-5) (citations omitted). 

 In accordance with the foregoing, the parties had until June 13, 2016 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.”); 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, 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 Willett’s R&R (Doc. 18) 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 2:14-cv-01814-DJH Document 19 Filed 06/14/16 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 14th day of June, 2016. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:14-cv-01814-DJH Document 19 Filed 06/14/16 Page 3 of 3