Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-01185/USCOURTS-azd-2_01-cv-01185-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Stephen M. Nardi, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 01-1185-PHX-EHC (LOA)

ORDER

Before the Court is an Amended Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 79) from

Magistrate Judge Anderson, which recommends denial of Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus (Dkt. 1) and the claims asserted in his 2004 Memorandum (Dkt. 25).

Petitioner filed Objections to the Amended Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 86).

Respondents filed a Response to Petitioner’s Objections (Dkt. 89).

The Court reviews de novo the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation to which Petitioner has filed an objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)(“a

judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, ..., to

which objection is made.”); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th

Cir. 2003). The district court is not required to review any issue that is not the subject of an

objection. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003), citing Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 

The Court having reviewed the record, including Objections filed by Petitioner and

Case 2:01-cv-01185-EHC Document 90 Filed 09/30/08 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 -

Response by Respondents, adopts in full the Amended Report and Recommendations of the

Magistrate Judge and incorporates the same as a part of this Order. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Amended Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 79).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1) and the claims asserted in the 2004

Memorandum (Dkt. 25) are DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 30th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:01-cv-01185-EHC Document 90 Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 2