Leon B. Bailey, Jr. v. Ryan F. Thornell, et al.

6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Leon B ailey, Jr., ) No. CV-25-01145-PHX-SPL ) ) 10 Petitioner, ) ORDER vs. ) ) ) Ryan F. Thornell, et al., ) ) 13 Respondents. ) ) 14 ) 15 The Court has before it, Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 7), the Answer from the Respondents (Doc. 12), and a Reply from the Petitioner (Doc. 13). Additionally, the Court has also considered the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 14), Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 21), and Respondents’ Response (Doc. 23).

20 A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 28 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial | economy). Further, a party is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or | arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court’s | decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 4| (9th Cir. 2000).

5 The Court has carefully undertaken an extensive review of the sufficiently | developed record. The Petitioner’s objections to the findings and recommendations have | also been thoroughly considered.

8 After conducting a de novo review of the issues and objections, the Court reaches | the same conclusions reached by the magistrate judge. This Court finds Judge Bachus correctly concluded that Petitioner’s claims in Grounds One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, | and Seven (a){e) were not properly exhausted and procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 14 at 18- 22). The Court further agrees that Petitioners claims for ineffective assistance of counsel | in Grounds Seven (f)-(h) were properly exhausted but he failed to show how counsel’s 14 performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. (Doc. 14 at 22-27). The | R&R will be adopted in full.

16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS ORDERED: 18 1. That Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus’s Report and Recommendation | (Doc. 14) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 20 2. That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21| § 2254 (Doc. 7) is denied and dismissed with prejudice; 22 3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on | appeal are denied; and 24 4. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and terminate this action.

25 Dated this 15th day of April, 2026.

28 United States District ladge