Jeffrey Ramone Mathis v. Ryan Thornell, et al.

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jeffrey Ramone Mathis, No. CV-25-02644-PHX-SMB

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Ryan Thornell, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 The Court now considers the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 25) of 16 Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle recommending that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 17 Corpus (Doc. 1) be denied and Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13) be 18 denied. After careful consideration of the record the Court: adopts the Report and 19 Recommendation; denies Petitioner’s Petition for Writ for Habeas Corpus; and denies 20 Petitioner’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 After a jury trial in Arizona state court, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree 23 murder, drive-by shooting, attempted first-degree murder, and aggravated assault. (Doc. 24 25 at 2.) Petitioner sought post-conviction relief which the trial court dismissed. (Id.) 25 Petitioner then filed an appeal and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner’s 26 convictions and sentences. (Id.) Petitioner again sought post-conviction relief which was 27 denied by the trial and appellate courts. (Id.) The Arizona Supreme Court declined review 28 of Petitioner’s claims. (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the present Petition. Petitioner raises 1 four grounds for relief: (1) The State failed to disclose impeaching evidence that was in possession 2 of the investigative agency, to which the State had access, in violation of 3 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Petitioner’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 4

5 (2) There was prosecutorial misconduct, which violated Petitioner’s Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, because the prosecutor used 6 perjured testimony by introducing testimony in the grand jury hearing that 7 was perjured, and then allowed it to go on uncorrected.

8 (3) There was prosecutorial misconduct, which violated Petitioner’s Fifth, 9 Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights because the conviction was obtained as a result of prosecutorial misconduct, which so infected the trial 10 with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a violation of due process. 11 According to Petitioner, the prosecution used Rule 607 as subterfuge to avoid the hearsay rule in order to elicit otherwise inadmissible impeachment 12 testimony.

13 (4) Petitioner received ineffective assistance in violation of his Fifth, Sixth, 14 and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 15 (Doc. 6 at 2 (citation modified).) The R&R reports that found one, two, and three are 16 procedurally defaulted. (Doc. 25 at 1.) The R&R reports that ground four was 17 appropriately rejected by the Arizona Court of appeals. (Id.) 18 II. LEGAL STANDARD 19 The Court must “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to 20 which objection is made,” and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 21 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). “If, 22 following review, the district court is satisfied with the magistrate judge’s findings and 23 recommendations it may in its discretion treat those findings and recommendations as its 24 own.” Schweitzer v. Old Republic Gen. Ins. Co., No. CV-24-00440-TUC-SHR, 2026 WL 25 850491, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 27, 2026) (citation modified). The Court has “no obligation 26 to provide individualized analysis of each objection.” United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 27 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023). Objections are not “a second opportunity to present the arguments 28 already considered by the Magistrate Judge.” Schweitzer, 2026 WL 850491, at *1 (citation 1 modified). “The purpose of the Federal Magistrates Act is to relieve courts of unnecessary 2 work” and “there is no increase in efficiency, and much extra work, when a party attempts 3 to relitigate every argument which it presented to the Magistrate Judge.” Id. (citation 4 modified) 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 The Court undertook a novo review the record including the R&R, the Petition, the 7 Motion and corresponding briefing, Petitioner’s Objection to the R&R (Doc. 26), and 8 Petitioner’s Motion to Supplement Case Authority (Doc. 27). Based on this de novo 9 review, the Court adopts the R&R in full. An exhaustive recapitulation of the R&R and 10 Petitioner’s objections are unnecessary. See Ramos, 65 F.4th at 434. The Court notes that 11 Petitioner seemingly does not object to the R&R’s treatment of this Motion for Summary 12 Judgment. See Schweitzer, 2026 WL 850491, at *1 (“The Court is obligated to review only 13 the specific portions of the report, proposed findings, or recommendations to which the 14 parties object.” (citing § 636(b)(1)).) 15 The Court also notes that Petitioner asks for this Court to consider the Supreme 16 Court’s decisions in Glossip v. Oklahoma, 604 U.S. 226 (2025) (decided on February 25, 17 2025) and Andrew v. White, 604 U.S. 86 (2025) (decided on January 21, 2025). (Doc. 27 18 at 1.) Petitioner contends that these “two new case authorities were published in December 19 2025”—the same month as his “writ for habeas corpus reply”—and “expanded federal law 20 to overcome alleged procedural default regarding ‘Napue’ violations.” (Id.) Plaintiff is 21 mistaken because both authorities were published even prior to Petitioner filing his Petition 22 in July 2025. (Doc. 1.) Nonetheless, neither Glossip nor Andrew require a different 23 outcome here. 24 IV. CONCLUSION 25 Accordingly, 26 IT IS ORDERED Petitioners Objections (Doc. 26) are overruled and the R&R 27 (Doc. 25) is adopted in full 28 /// l IT IS THUS ORDERED denying Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2|| (Doc. 1) and Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 13). 3 Dated this 2nd day of July, 2026. 4 Se . ~P 6 Gnvted States District ude. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-