Mitchell v. Schriro et al

Filing 45

ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) is accepted and adopted by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Motion for Order Directing Respondents to Allow Petitioner Access to the Prison Library, or, Alternatively, Allow Petitioner to Borrow Legal Research Materials from the Library, or Show Cause Why Petitioner Should Not be Granted the Relief Sought Herein (Doc. 29) and the petitioner's Motion for Expedient Disposition in "Motion for Order Directing Respondents to Allow Petitioner Access to the Prison Library, or, Alternatively, Allow Petitioner to Borrow Legal Research Materials from the Library, or Show Cause Why Petitioner Should Not be Granted the Relief Sought Herein&qu ot; (Doc. 30) are both denied. FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that n o certificate of appealability shall issue because the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 8/29/10. (KMG)

Mitchell v. Schriro et al

Doc. 45

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

David Mitchell, Petitioner, vs. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV-08-1463-PHX-PGR (DKD)

ORDER

)

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Duncan in light of Petitioner's Objections to Magistrate's Report and Recommendations (Doc. 44), the Court finds that the petitioner's objections should be overruled because the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that all of the grounds raised in the petitioner's habeas corpus petition fail on their merits. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 33) is accepted and adopted by the Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Motion for Order Directing Respondents to Allow Petitioner Access to the Prison Library, or, Alternatively, Allow Petitioner to Borrow Legal Research Materials from the Library, or Show

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Cause Why Petitioner Should Not be Granted the Relief Sought Herein (Doc. 29) and the petitioner's Motion for Expedient Disposition in "Motion for Order Directing Respondents to Allow Petitioner Access to the Prison Library, or, Alternatively, Allow Petitioner to Borrow Legal Research Materials from the Library, or Show Cause Why Petitioner Should Not be Granted the Relief Sought Herein" (Doc. 30) are both denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue because the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 29th day of August, 2010.

-2-