Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02415/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02415-0/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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gabriel James Sullivan,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles Ryan, et al. 

 Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV09-2415-PHX-SRB

ORDER

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

on November 18, 2009 raising three ground for relief: 1) violation of his Sixth Amendment

right of confrontation by the admission of a videotaped interview of the victim; 2) violation

of his Eighth Amendment rights because his 15-year prison sentence constituted cruel and

unusual punishment and; 3) violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance

of counsel. On March 8, 2010, Respondents filed their Response to Petitioner’s Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus. No reply was filed. On February 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge

issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied. .

In his Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they

had 14 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has

expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed.

Case 2:09-cv-02415-SRB Document 30 Filed 03/16/11 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 -

The Court has reviewed the petition, response and their attachments and the Report

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court finds itself in agreement with the

Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

as the order of this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied

on the merits of the claims raised in Grounds One and Two and denied on Ground Three

based on procedural default 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain

procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable and

because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 15th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02415-SRB Document 30 Filed 03/16/11 Page 2 of 2