Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01783/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01783-1/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Rocky Ross,

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 07-1783-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”). (Doc. #1.) The matter was referred to

the magistrate judge for a Report and Recommendation. (Doc. #2.) On February 28, 2008,

the magistrate judge filed a Report and Recommendation with this Court. (Doc. #9.) On

March 10, 2008, Petitioner filed his Objection (Doc. #10) to the Report and

Recommendation. After considering the magistrate judge’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-01783-SMM Document 11 Filed 04/10/08 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 (Doc. #9).

- 2 -

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

(9th Cir. 1983)). 

DISCUSSION1

 In their Answer, Respondents contend that the claims presented in Petitioner’s habeas

petition are untimely, not subject to equitable tolling, and procedurally defaulted.

Respondents also contend that Plaintiff waived any claim of actual innocence, and that

regardless of this waiver Petitioner failed to provide reliable new evidence of innocence.

After conducting a thorough legal analysis, the magistrate judge reached the same

conclusion. 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 the magistrate judge (Doc. #9).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. #1) is DENIED and this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01783-SMM Document 11 Filed 04/10/08 Page 2 of 2