Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00222/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00222-1/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)

---

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1

Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514, 1518 (9 Cir. 1989), overruled on other grounds by

2 th

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9 Cir. 1996). th

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 3

Taberer v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 954 F.2d 888, 906 (3d Cir. 1992). 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

DOUGLAS LEE HOWARD, )

)

Petitioner, ) 2:10-cv-00222 JWS

)

vs. )

) ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

CHARLES L. RYAN, et al, )

) [Re: Petition at docket 1;

Respondents. ) Report at docket 17]

)

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus.

Respondents filed their opposition at docket 15. Magistrate Judge Burns, to whom the

matter was referred, filed a report at docket 17 recommending that the petition be

denied. The time for objections has run and none have been filed.

The district court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

or recommendations made by the magistrate.” When reviewing a magistrate judge’s 1

report and recommendation in a case such as this one, the district court conducts de

novo review of all conclusions of law, and any findings of fact to which objections have 2

been made. Uncontested findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. 3 4

Case 2:10-cv-00222-JWS Document 18 Filed 08/13/10 Page 1 of 2
-2-

Having reviewed the parties’ papers and applied the standard of review

articulated above, this court concludes that the magistrate judge has correctly found the

facts and applied the law. Therefore, this court adopts Magistrate Judge Burns’

recommended findings and conclusions at docket 17. Based thereon, the petition at

docket 1 is DENIED, and this case is DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this court will not grant the Certificate of

Appealability required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), nor will it grant leave to proceed on

appeal in forma pauperis, because dismissal of the petition is clearly warranted by a

plain procedural bar, and jurists of reason would not find the procedural bar debatable. 

If petitioner desires to take an appeal he must request a Certificate of Appealabilty from

the Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1).

DATED at Anchorage, Alaska this 13th day of August 2010.

 /S/ 

JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:10-cv-00222-JWS Document 18 Filed 08/13/10 Page 2 of 2