Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00147/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00147-6/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

Tarmaine A. Colbert, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Ricardo Chavez, Warden; Terry Goddard,

Arizona Attorney General,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-147-PHX-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 David K. Duncan for a Report and Recommendation. On October 18, 2007, the

Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Dkt. 20). On October

29, 2007, Petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file his objections, which the

Court granted (Dkt. 22). On November 26, 2007, Petitioner filed his Objection (Dkt. 35) to

the Report and Recommendation. After considering Judge Duncan’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 2:07-cv-00147-SMM Document 24 Filed 12/13/07 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. 20).

- 2 -

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983)). 

DISCUSSION1

Petitioner’s conviction became final on August 1, 2001. Petitioner filed his Petition

on January 22, 2007, and an amended petition on May 21, 2007. The Magistrate Judge

concluded that no statutory tolling applied, and that Petitioner had not shown that anything

other than lack of due diligence accounted for his failure to file a timely petition. Petitioner

objects to the Report and Recommendation on the ground that it fails to address the merits

of his Petition, and proceeds to reargue those merits. Notably, Petitioner’s objections fail to

address the issue of why his petition was not timely filed. 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 David K. Duncan (Dkt. 20).

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 13th day of December, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00147-SMM Document 24 Filed 12/13/07 Page 2 of 2