Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08023/USCOURTS-azd-3_07-cv-08023-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Citizenship

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Earl Douglas Redford, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2643-PHX-FJM

ORDER

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. 10), petitioner’s reply (doc. 11), and

supplement to his reply (doc. 12). We also have before us the Report and Recommendation

of the United States Magistrate Judge (doc. 29). No objection to the Report and

Recommendation was filed and the time to object has now passed.

The Magistrate Judge recommends denying the Petition for the reason that it is

untimely under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. §

2244(d), and, alternatively, because petitioner’s claims are procedurally barred. We accept

the recommended decision of the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing

Case 3:07-cv-08023-FJM Document 31 Filed 01/18/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

§ 2254 Cases. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus (doc. 1).

DATED this 17th day of January, 2008.

Case 3:07-cv-08023-FJM Document 31 Filed 01/18/08 Page 2 of 2