Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00001/USCOURTS-azd-2_16-cv-00001-1/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

Tony Lamar Reed, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-16-00001-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) filed on January 4, 2016, and the 

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 12) issued by United States Magistrate 

Judge Deborah M. Fine on February 7, 2017. Following a jury trial in 2012 in Maricopa 

County Superior Court, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, 

second degree burglary, and aggravated assault. (Doc. 12 at 2). Petitioner was sentenced 

to 15 years in prison for each of the robbery, burglary and assault charges, and 18 years 

for the kidnapping charge, with the terms ordered to run concurrently. (Id.). After 

Petitioner’s appointed counsel on appeal found no arguable issues to present, Petitioner 

filed his own direct appeal. (Id.). On January 14, 2014, the Arizona Court of Appeals 

affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and sentences. (Doc. 12 at 2-3). His petition for review 

to the Arizona Supreme Court was denied. (Doc. 12 at 3). Petitioner’s subsequent pro se 

petition for post-conviction relief was also denied, and he failed to properly seek review 

in the Arizona Court of Appeals. (Id.). 

Case 2:16-cv-00001-DJH Document 13 Filed 03/16/17 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 

 Petitioner raised four grounds for relief in the Petition, including insufficiency of 

the evidence at trial, ineffective assistance of trial counsel, negligent investigation by the 

Phoenix Police Department, a violation of due process based on judicial misconduct, 

vindictive prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct. (Doc. 12 at 5-6). After 

consideration and analysis of the issues, Judge Fine concluded that Grounds Two through 

Four of the Petition are procedurally defaulted because Petitioner failed to exhaust his 

state court remedies and that he is now barred from doing so. (Doc. 12 at 6-9). 

Regarding Ground One, Judge Fine addressed the merits and determined that Petitioner 

failed to demonstrate he is entitled to habeas relief. (Doc. 12 at 9-11). Accordingly, 

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

12 at 11). 

 Judge Fine 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. 12 at 11-12) (citing 

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). 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). 

Case 2:16-cv-00001-DJH Document 13 Filed 03/16/17 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 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Fine's R&R (Doc. 12) 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 FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action 

and enter judgment accordingly. 

Dated this 15th day of March, 2017. 

Honorable Diane J. Humetewa

United States District Judge 

Case 2:16-cv-00001-DJH Document 13 Filed 03/16/17 Page 3 of 3