BARGER v. RYAN, CV-11-8034-PCT-FJM. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20120127c60
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 25, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 25, 2012
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge. The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (doc. 1), respondents' answer (doc. 15), and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (doc. 16). The petitioner did not object to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so has expired. Pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge. The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 (doc. 1), respondents' answer (doc. 15), and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (doc. 16). The petitioner did not object to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so has expired. Pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules G..
More
ORDER
FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge.
The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents' answer (doc. 15), and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (doc. 16). The petitioner did not object to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so has expired.
Pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, we accept the recommended decision of the United States Magistrate Judge. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING AND DISMISSING with prejudice the petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1).
Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because the dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
Source: Leagle
