Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00328-2/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

Sean Del Morris,

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 05-328 PHX NVW

ORDER

Before the Court are Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. #1),

United States Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds' Report and Recommendation (doc.

#15), Petitioner's Specific Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendations, and

Request for De Novo Review (docs. #16 and 17), and Respondents' Response to

Petitioner's Objection to Report and Recommendation (doc. #19).

Petitioner's Specific Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendations, and

Request for De Novo Review (doc. #16) asserts that Petitioner did not have access

through prison library resources to the text of 28 U.S.C. §2244(d), which provides a oneyear statute of limitations which the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation notes

Petitioner has failed to comply with. By order of November 22, 2005 (doc. #18), the

Court directed Respondents to submit their response to the objection demonstrating

whether, in fact, the Department of Corrections provided access to Petitioner to the text of

28 U.S.C. §2244 at the relevant times. Respondents' Response (doc. #19) demonstrates

Case 2:05-cv-00328-NVW Document 20 Filed 12/14/05 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 -

through the affidavit of Daryl Johnson that Petitioner had access through the Department

of Corrections to the text of the statute at all relevant times. 

The Court has considered Petitioner's objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The Court agrees with the

magistrate judge's determinations, accepts her recommended decision within the meaning

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's objections. See 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1) (stating that the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of

Magistrate Judge Glenda E. Edmonds (doc. #15) is accepted. 

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

(doc. #1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

accordingly and terminate this action. 

DATED this 13th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-00328-NVW Document 20 Filed 12/14/05 Page 2 of 2