Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00187/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00187-1/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 

Jimmie Lee Ford, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan; et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-00187-PHX-NVW (DKD)

ORDER 

and 

DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY AND IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS STATUS

Pending before the Court is the Amended Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) 

of Magistrate Judge David K. Duncan (Doc. 23) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ 

of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), his motion to amend and 

his additional pending motions. The Amended R&R recommends that the Petition be 

denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they 

had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 10 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1); Rules 72, 6(a), 6(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.) Petitioner filed 

objections on January 13, 2016 (Doc. 24). 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed the Amended Report and 

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that 

the court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and 

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the 

meaning of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner’s objections. See 28 

Case 2:15-cv-00187-NVW Document 25 Filed 01/15/16 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 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole 

or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Amended Report and Recommendation 

of the Magistrate Judge (Doc.23) is accepted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Stay and Abeyance is 

denied as moot (Doc. 14). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend is denied as futile 

(Doc. 16). 

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order 

denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 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 

ruling debatable. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying 

and dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 14th day of January, 2016. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-00187-NVW Document 25 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2