ORDER

JOHN J. TUCHI, District Judge.

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on July 16, 2013 (Doc. 1). Respondents filed an Answer on October 1, 2013 (Doc. 11), arguing that, for the vast majority of claims Petitioner raised, relief was barred either by Petitioner's failure to exhaust his federal claims in state court or because he had procedurally defaulted on them, and the few remaining claims not barred or defaulted lacked merit. Petitioner filed a Reply in support of his Petition on October 30, 2013 (Doc. 14).

On April 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge made her Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16) that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge also recommended denial of a Certificate of Appealability because the dismissal of the Petition was justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable, or because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

On May 28, 2014, Petitioner filed timely written objections (Doc. 19) that did not address any error in the Magistrate Judge's analysis of timeliness and procedural default or lack of merits and failure to show prejudice, but reiterated and re-argued his view of the facts of the case at all levels. Respondents filed a brief response to Petitioner's objections on June 12, 2014 (Doc. 20).

Upon de novo review, the Court is in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court overrules Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, including his objection to the recommendation of denial of a Certificate of Appealability.

Petitioner asserts a multitude of claims, which could be counted and numbered many different ways. For the sake of consistency and ease of reference, the Court will use the numbering convention and claim classification system initiated by Respondent and adopted by the Magistrate Judge. That system classifies Petitioner's challenges to his conviction and sentence as claims one through 11, with claims one and eight having multiple subparts.

For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, claims 1(c) and 2 through 11 are barred from federal habeas review by Petitioner's failure to exhaust state court review or by procedural default. The Magistrate Judge further concluded correctly after analysis that Petitioner failed to establish a "fundamental miscarriage of justice" or "cause and prejudice" to overcome the procedural bar of default on any of these claims.

Petitioner did properly exhaust claims 1(a) and 1(b) in state court, and both are thus properly before this Court on habeas review. However, as the Magistrate Judge properly concluded after analysis, the state sentencing court's errors in claims 1(a) and 1(b) resulted in no prejudice to Petitioner.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 19).

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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Certificate of Appealability. The denial of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.