Donald v. Shinn

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

9 Terrell Artist Donald, No. CV-19-03305-PHX-JJT (CDB) 10 Petitioner, ORDER v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., 13 Respondents.

15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) (“R&R”) submitted in this matter by United States Magistrate Judge Camille D. Bibles, recommending the Court deny the pending Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1). In the R&R, Judge Bibles warned Petitioner he 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 appellate consideration of the issues” per United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003), and a waiver if his right to appellate review of any findings of fact and conclusions of law the Court adopts in this Order pursuant to the R&R, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. (Doc. 9 at 17.)

24 It has been nearly five weeks since entry of the R&R and Petitioner filed no objections; he therefore has 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.

28 . . . .

1 Judge Bibles correctly concluded in the R&R that Petitioner has provided no || evidence to contradict his sworn statements at his change of plea hearing that his guilty || plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary. There is no evidence, therefore, to support a 4|| claim of coercion. Moreover there is no showing Petitioner’s counsel’s performance was || deficient under the standards set and refined, respectively, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 6|| U.S. 668, 690 (1984), Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 56-7 (1985), or McMann vy. || Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970). Petitioner does not state an ineffective assistance || of counsel claim.

9 IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 9) including its || underlying reasoning.

11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing with prejudice the Petition || for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1).

13 IT IS FURTHER Ordered denying a Certificate of Appealability, upon the Court’s 14|| finding that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional || right.

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

17 Dated this Ist day of June, 2020. CN Unifga StatesDistrict Judge -2-