Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01976/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01976-5/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Terry Lee Lacy, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Tara L. Diaz, et. al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-1976-PHX-SMM

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). The matter was referred to Magistrate

Judge Michelle H. Burns for a Report and Recommendation. On September 18, 2007, the

Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Doc. 24). On

September 25, 2007, Petitioner filed his Objection (Doc. 25) to the Report and

Recommendation. After considering Judge Burns’s Report and Recommendation and the

arguments raised in Petitioner's Objections thereto, the Court now issues the following ruling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “must

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the Magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

Case 2:06-cv-01976-SMM Document 26 Filed 10/09/07 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

 1The detailed procedural history of this case is set forth in Respondents’ Answer

to the Petition (Doc. 12) and the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.

24).

- 2 -

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983)). 

DISCUSSION1

 In their Answer, Respondents contend that the claims presented in Petitioner’s habeas

petition are procedurally defaulted. Respondents argue that because Petitioner cannot

establish the requisite objective cause and prejudice, he is not entitled to federal habeas

review of these procedurally defaulted claims. After conducting a thorough legal analysis,

the Magistrate Judge reached the same conclusion. Having reviewed the legal conclusions

of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, and the objections having been

made by Petitioner thereto, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge adequately addressed

all of Petitioner's arguments. Therefore, the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation

of Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns (Doc. 24).

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

(Doc. 1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 9th day of October, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01976-SMM Document 26 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 2