VALENCIA v. RYAN, CV-09-00574-TUC-FRZ (HCE). (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120515859
Visitors: 8
Filed: May 14, 2012
Latest Update: May 14, 2012
Summary: ORDER FRANK R. ZAPATA, District Judge. Renie Valencia was convicted by a jury of theft and burglary offenses and presently is incarcerated in an Arizona state prison. He commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Doc. 1. The amended petition asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, double jeopardy, and violations of the right to due process and to a jury trial. Doc. 6. Respondents have filed an answer to the petition. Doc. 15.
Summary: ORDER FRANK R. ZAPATA, District Judge. Renie Valencia was convicted by a jury of theft and burglary offenses and presently is incarcerated in an Arizona state prison. He commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254. Doc. 1. The amended petition asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, double jeopardy, and violations of the right to due process and to a jury trial. Doc. 6. Respondents have filed an answer to the petition. Doc. 15. ..
More
ORDER
FRANK R. ZAPATA, District Judge.
Renie Valencia was convicted by a jury of theft and burglary offenses and presently is incarcerated in an Arizona state prison. He commenced this action by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Doc. 1. The amended petition asserts claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, double jeopardy, and violations of the right to due process and to a jury trial. Doc. 6. Respondents have filed an answer to the petition. Doc. 15.
On January 9, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Hector Estrada issued a report and recommendation ("R&R") that the petition be denied on the grounds that the claims asserted are procedurally defaulted or otherwise without merit. Doc. 16. The parties were advised that they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R and that the failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination may be deemed a waiver of the party's right to de novo review of the issues. Id. at 24-25.
No objection has been filed, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court will accept the R&R and deny the petition.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation (Doc. 16) is accepted.
2. The amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 6) is denied.
3. A certificate of appealability is denied.
4. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.
Source: Leagle
