Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

CANTRELL v. POGUE, CV-14-1504-PHX-SRB. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Arizona Number: infdco20151005927 Visitors: 15
Filed: Oct. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2015
Summary: ORDER SUSAN R. BOLTON , District Judge . Petitioner filed his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 on August 15, 2014 raising three grounds for relief: 1) that Respondents violated his due process rights under the 5 th and 14 th Amendments; 2) that Respondents violated his speedy trial right under the 6 th Amendment; and 3) that Respondents violated Petitioner's equal protections rights under the 14 th Amendment. Respondents filed their Response to Pet
More

ORDER

Petitioner filed his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on August 15, 2014 raising three grounds for relief: 1) that Respondents violated his due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments; 2) that Respondents violated his speedy trial right under the 6th Amendment; and 3) that Respondents violated Petitioner's equal protections rights under the 14th Amendment. Respondents filed their Response to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on December 18, 2014. Petitioner filed his reply on January 16, 2015. On September 11, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice.

In her Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. (Doc. 16)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and dismissing it with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal because dismissal of the Amended Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer