Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01668/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01668-1/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

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

FRANK HENSEL HARMON, )

)

Petitioner, ) 2:07-CV-1668 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER FROM CHAMBERS 

)

CHARLES RYAN, et al., ) [Re: Report at docket 10]

)

Respondents. )

)

I. MATTER PRESENTED

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

matter was briefed. At docket 10, Magistrate Judge Ferraro, to whom the petition was

referred, recommends that the petition be denied as procedurally defaulted and time

barred. No objections have been filed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

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

or recommendations made by the magistrate.”1

 When reviewing a magistrate judge’s

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

Case 2:07-cv-01668-JWS Document 11 Filed 10/29/09 Page 1 of 2
2

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

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

3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4

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

-2-

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

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

III. DISCUSSION

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 with one minor modification. This court believes that the

appropriate disposition is a denial of the petition rather than a dismissal. Accordingly,

with that minor modification, this court adopts the recommended findings of fact and

conclusions of law at docket 10.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, and based on the recommended findings and

conclusions presented by Magistrate Judge Ferraro, the petition at docket 1 is DENIED. 

The Clerk will please enter judgment accordingly.

DATED at this 28th day of October 2009.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:07-cv-01668-JWS Document 11 Filed 10/29/09 Page 2 of 2