Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00362/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00362-1/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

Kurt B. Williams, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-0362-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On January 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.

#1). On May 21, 2007, Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the petition be denied (Doc. #35). Petitioner

filed his Objections on June 4, 2007. 

The Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It is "clear that the

district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if

objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121

(9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1126 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of

factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, 'but not otherwise."'). 

Case 2:06-cv-00362-ROS Document 40 Filed 07/24/07 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

- 2 -

In his objections, the Petitioner argues that the Magistrate Judge misconstrued his

claims by stating that petitioner alleged two grounds for relief in his petition: (1) that he

received ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment when he was

forced to choose between a proper investigation of his case and an expiring plea offer; and

(2) that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by telling the trial could at the

plea hearing that she could not properly advise Petitioner whether to accept the plea

agreement because the case had not been sufficiently investigation, thus causing the

prosecution to withdraw the plea offer. Petitioner argues that he has stated only one ground

for relief - that his counsel stated on the record that she was unprepared, which constituted

ineffective assistance of counsel. 

In reviewing the R&R, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge conducted a

proper review of Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The Court agrees with

the Magistrate Judge’s analysis of Petitioner’s claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466

U.S. 688 (1984) and concludes that Petitioner did not show that his counsel’s representation

fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that but for counsel’s errors, the result

of the proceeding would have been different. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1)

is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the R&R (Doc. #35) is ADOPTED IN FULL.

DATED this 24th day of July, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00362-ROS Document 40 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 2