Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01145/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-01145-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Phillip Daniel Sims,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 04-1145-PCT-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 Héctor C. Estrada for a Report and Recommendation. On September 28, 2007, the

Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Dkt. 34). On October

5, 2007, Petitioner filed his Objection (Dkt. 35) to the Report and Recommendation. After

considering Judge Estrada’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 3:04-cv-01145-SMM Document 36 Filed 10/17/07 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 factual and procedural history of this case is set forth in the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 34).

- 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, or Petitioner failed to exhaust the remedies available in

state court, or both. 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 Héctor C. Estrada (Dkt. 34).

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

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

DATED this 17th day of October, 2007.

Case 3:04-cv-01145-SMM Document 36 Filed 10/17/07 Page 2 of 2