SHERMAN v. BRODERICK

No. CV-16-01794-PHX-JAT.

Roy Gene Sherman, Jr., Petitioner, v. Barbara Broderick, et al., Respondents.

United States District Court, D. Arizona.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Nature of Suit: 530 Prisoner: Habeas Corpus (General)
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Roy Gene Sherman, Jr., Petitioner, represented by Garrett James Wilkes , Garrett Wilkes Law PLLC.

Barbara Broderick, Respondent, represented by Adele Ponce , Office of the Attorney General.

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Respondent, represented by Adele Ponce , Office of the Attorney General.


ORDER

JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.

Pending before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") (Doc. 1). The Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 21) recommending that the Petition be denied because it is barred by the statute of limitations.

Neither party has filed objections to the R&R. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the R&R. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (finding that district courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection" (emphasis added)); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) ("statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise" (emphasis in original)); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003).

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is ACCEPTED; accordingly,

• Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied and dismissed with prejudice,

• in the event Petitioner files an appeal, issuance of a certificate of appealability is denied because denial of the Petition is based on a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find this Court's procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), and

• the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment of dismissal with prejudice.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases