Adame v. Ryan et al

Filing 22

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS of the Honorable John W. Sedwick: This court adopts the 20 recommendations. Based thereon, Ground 3 is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the remainder of the petition at docket 1 is DENIED. The Clerk will please enter judgment accor dingly and close this file. It is further ordered that this court will not grant the Certificate of Appealability required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), nor will it grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, because dismissal of a portion of the petition is clearly warranted by a plain procedural bar which jurists of reason would not find debatable, and because the remainder of the petition does not raise a substantial claim of denial of a Constitutional right. If petitioner desires to appeal he must request a Certificate of Appealabilty from the Court of Appeals. (ESL)

MINUTES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Armando Adame v. Charles L. Ryan, et al
THE HONORABLE JOHN W. SEDWICK

PROCEEDINGS:

2:09-cv-01341 JWS (JRI)

ORDER FROM CHAMBERS

June 29, 2011

Armando Adame (“petitioner”) moved for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was briefed, and then in a report at docket 20, Magistrate
Judge Jay Irwin recommended that the petition be dismissed with prejudice in part and
otherwise be denied. Petitioner filed an objection at docket 21.
This court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When reviewing a
magistrate judge’s recommendations in a case such as this one, this court conducts de
novo review of all recommended conclusions of law, and any recommended findings of
fact to which objections have been taken. Recommended findings of fact as to which
no objection has been taken are reviewed for clear error. Having applied those
standards of review, this court finds that the recommended findings of fact and
conclusions of law are correct. Petitioner’s objections raise nothing not adequately
addressed by the Magistrate Judge.
This court adopts the recommendations at docket 20. Based thereon, Ground 3
is DISMISSED with prejudice, and the remainder of the petition at docket 1 is
DENIED. The Clerk will please enter judgment accordingly and close this file.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this court will not grant the Certificate of
Appealability required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), nor will it grant leave to proceed on
appeal in forma pauperis, because dismissal of a portion of the petition is clearly
warranted by a plain procedural bar which jurists of reason would not find debatable,
and because the remainder of the petition does not raise a substantial claim of denial of
a Constitutional right. If petitioner desires to appeal he must request a Certificate of
Appealabilty from the Court of Appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(1).