Dickey v. Shinn

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Ellen Ruth Dickey, No. CV-19-08066-PCT-JJT (CDB) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) (“R&R”) submitted in this matter by United States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles, recommending the Court deny the Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). In the R&R, Judge Bibles warned Petitioner she had 14 days from the date of its service to file any objections thereto, and failure to timely file any objections “will be considered a waiver of [Petitioner’s] right to de novo appellate consideration of the issues,” per United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), and a waiver if her right to appellate review of any findings of fact and conclusions of law the Court makes in this Order pursuant to the R&R. (Doc. 11 at 12.)

23 It has been over six weeks since entry of the R&R and Petitioner filed no objections; she has therefore waived the above rights. Even if the Court reviewed the R&R on its merits, however, it would conclude that Judge Bibles’s recommendations and findings are all legally sound and supported by the record.

27 Upon a review of the underlying state court record and the briefing of the parties in this matter, the Court agrees that the state court’s denial of Petitioner’s Strickland claim || for ineffective assistance of counsel was not an unreasonable application of law. The Court || further concludes that Petitioner may not bring a claim for habeas relief on her Fourth || Amendment ground per Crater v. Galaza, 508 F.3d 1261, 1269 (9th Cir. 2007). Finally, 4|| Petitioner’s consecutive sentences for felon in possession and possession of a firearm in || the commission of a drug offense do not violate either due process or the double jeopardy || clause.

7 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 11) including its || underlying reasoning.

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1).

10 IT IS FURTHER Ordered denying a Certificate of Appealability, upon a finding || that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of Court to terminate this matter.

13 Dated this 18th day of May, 2020. CN 14 “wok: 15 ef holee— United State$District Judge -2-