Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00239/USCOURTS-azd-4_09-cv-00239-1/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

Alfonso Fragoso, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Riening, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 09-CV-239-TUC-AWT

ORDER

On April 14, 2010, Magistrate Judge Estrada issued a Report and Recommendation

(R&R) (Doc. 8) in which he recommended that the Court deny part of the petition and

dismiss the remainder of Petitioner’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody. The Petitioner did not object to the Report and

Recommendation.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or

in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” Although this Court is not

required to review the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, because there were no objections to the

R&R, this Court has, nonetheless, reviewed the magistrate judge’s R&R. See United States

v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the standard of review for district

courts when reviewing an R&R when no objections are made).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

Case 4:09-cv-00239-AWT Document 9 Filed 04/21/11 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 -

1. The Magistrate’s R&R (Doc. 8) is adopted.

2. The Ground I claim of due process violation is dismissed as procedurally

defaulted.

3. Alternatively, the entire Ground I claim is dismissed as procedurally barred

under the independent and adequate state ground doctrine.

4. All remaining claims–the Ground I claim based on Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543

U.S. 1 (2004), and the Ground II claim of ineffective assistance of counsel–are

dismissed on the merits.

5. The Clerk is directed to close the case and enter judgment denying in part

and dismissing in part Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

DATED this 20th day of April, 2011.

Case 4:09-cv-00239-AWT Document 9 Filed 04/21/11 Page 2 of 2