Bailey #361996 v. Thornell et al

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
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).
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
U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial
Leon Bailey, Jr.,
Petitioner,
vs.
Ryan F. Thornell, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV-25-01145-PHX-SPL
ORDER
Case 2:25-cv-01145-SPL Document 26 Filed 04/16/26 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
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
(9th Cir. 2000).
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.
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
performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. (Doc. 14 at 22–27). The
R&R will be adopted in full.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. That Magistrate Judge Alison S. Bachus’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc. 14) is accepted and adopted by the Court;
2. That the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (Doc. 7) is denied and dismissed with prejudice;
3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on
appeal are denied; and
4. That the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment and terminate this action.
Dated this 15th day of April, 2026.
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-01145-SPL Document 26 Filed 04/16/26 Page 2 of 2