Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03016/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03016-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ramona Holderman,

Petitioner,

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-3016-PHX-SMM

ORDER

On October 16, 2007, Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin filed a Report and Recommendation

advising this Court that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”) (Dkt. 1) should be denied. On October, 31, 2007, Petitioner filed

objections to Magistrate Irwin’s Report and Recommendation. After careful consideration of

the Report and Recommendation and the objections thereto, the Court hereby adopts Magistrate

Irwin’s Report and Recommendation.

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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

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

1983)). 

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives his right to

challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate’s legal

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998) (failure to object to Magistrate’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in

Case 2:06-cv-03016-SMM Document 18 Filed 11/02/07 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 - 2 -

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir. 1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed Petitioner’s Petition and, thereafter, having reviewed the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the record de novo, this Court agrees with Magistrate

Irwin’s conclusions. In particular, the Court agrees that Petitioner is entitled to the application

of Blakely, her conviction not being final until after the conclusion of her PCR proceeding.

However, no Blakely violation occurred, inasmuch as Petitioner admitted a prior conviction,

which was sufficient to authorize her aggravated sentence. Accordingly, Petitioner’s Ground

One is without merit and is denied. Furthermore, Petitioner failed to assert cause or prejudice

to excuse her default. Petitioner’s Ground Two was not properly exhausted and is now

procedurally defaulted. Accordingly, Ground Two is dismissed with prejudice. Consequently,

the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Ground Two (Notice) of Petitioner's Petition for Writ

of Habeas Corpus, filed December 15, 2006 (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of Petitioner's Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus, filed December 15, 2006 (Dkt. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall

terminate this action accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order

to all parties, as well as to Magistrate Jay R. Irwin.

DATED this 1st day of November, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03016-SMM Document 18 Filed 11/02/07 Page 2 of 2