ORDER

JOHN J. TUCHI, District Judge.

At issue is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 13) in this matter entered by United States Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade, recommending the Court deny and dismiss with prejudice the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner timely filed Objections to that R&R (Doc. 16) and Respondents timely filed a Response to those objections (Doc. 17.) Upon consideration of the above filings, the Court will adopt the R&R in whole, overrule the Objections, and deny the Petition.

Judge Bade's conclusion that Ground One of the Petition is precluded from review, and the reasoning underlying that conclusion, is correct in all regards. Petitioner presents no new argument to overcome the conclusion that, per Moormann v. Schriro, 426 F.3d 1044, 1053 (9th Cir. 2005), the Court cannot grant habeas relief. Moreover, he ignores Judge Bade's observation, as well as that of the Arizona trial court, that Petitioner's testimony was consistent with that of the involved officers on the issue whether Petitioner was reaching for something behind his back at the time of encounter, thus justifying the officers' action sunder the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Imbrogno's additional testimony would therefore have been of no help to the trial court. He either would have testified consistent with Petitioner—and therefore the officers—which would not lead to a different result on the suppression issue, or he would testify inconsistently with Petitioner, which would make no sense according to Petitioner's own testimony and similarly would not lead to a different result. Petitioner was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate his Fourth Amendment claim, and Judge Bade correctly assessed the issue.

Judge Bade also was correct in concluding that Grounds Two and Three are procedurally barred under Arizona state law, and Petitioner has shown no cause or other excuse recognized under law to overcome that bar.

IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner's Objections to the R&R (Doc. 16.)

IT IS FURTHER OTDERED adopting in whole the R&R submitted by Judge Bade in this matter, including the underlying reasoning. (Doc. 13.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying and dismissing the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, because the 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.

The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly and terminate this matter.