BOSQUEZ v. RYAN, CV-13-01714-PHX-PGR. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20151028a34
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 27, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 27, 2015
Summary: ORDER PAUL G. ROSENBLATT , District Judge . The Court having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) of Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade, filed on August 6, 2015, notwithstanding that no party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a P
Summary: ORDER PAUL G. ROSENBLATT , District Judge . The Court having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) of Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade, filed on August 6, 2015, notwithstanding that no party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Pe..
More
ORDER
PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, District Judge.
The Court having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) of Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade, filed on August 6, 2015, notwithstanding that no party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 22) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is Denied and that this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the procedural ruling debatable and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Source: Leagle
