Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01554/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01554-3/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

Carlos Adrian Morley, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Yolanda Elliott, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-01554-PHX-NVW (LOA)

ORDER

and 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 79) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1), and a second R&R (Doc. 76) regarding

respondents’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. 66). The first R&R

recommends that the Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice, and second R&R

recommends granting the motion to dismiss. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that

they had fourteen days to file objections to the R&R (Doc. 76 at 16 (citing

28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Doc. 79 at 38 (same)), and the Court later extended and consolidated the

briefing time (Docs. 83, 85, 95). Petitioner filed objections on April 22, 2011. (Docs. 105,

106.) 

The Court has considered the objections and reviewed both R&Rs 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

Case 2:09-cv-01554-NVW Document 108 Filed 05/03/11 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 -

both recommended decisions 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 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. 76) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. 79) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Jurisdiction (Mootness)” (Doc. 66) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying and

dismissing petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order

denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court FINDS: Certificate of

Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are Denied. Petitioner has

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

DATED this 3rd day of May, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01554-NVW Document 108 Filed 05/03/11 Page 2 of 2