Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03015/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03015-5/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Antonneo R. Boyce, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 05-3015-PHX-ROS (ECV)

ORDER

On February 23, 2007, Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss issued a Report and

Recommendation ("R&R") addressing Petitioner Antonneo R. Boyce's Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 48) Magistrate Judge Voss recommends that the petition be denied.

Petitioner filed objections to the R&R. (Doc. 51) For the following reasons, the R&R will

adopted and the petition will be denied.

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). The Court "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). 

The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus contains thirteen grounds for relief. Having

reviewed the issues de novo, Magistrate Judge Voss correctly found that grounds one, two,

three, four, twelve, and thirteen are not cognizable claims. See Langford v. Day, 110 F.3d

Case 2:05-cv-03015-ROS Document 52 Filed 06/18/07 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 -

1380, 1389 (9th Cir. 1996) ("[A]lleged errors in the application of state law are not

cognizable in federal habeas corpus."); Franzen v. Brinkman, 877 F.2d 26, 26 (9th Cir. 1989)

("[A] petition alleging errors in the state post-conviction review process is not addressable

through habeas corpus proceedings."). Magistrate Judge Voss also correctly found that

grounds five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven fail on their merits. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 48) is ADOPTED and the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall close this

case. 

DATED this 18th day of June, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-03015-ROS Document 52 Filed 06/18/07 Page 2 of 2