Sullivan v. Ryan et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied on the merits of the claims raised in Grounds One and Two and denied on Ground Three based on procedural default. ORDER denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal "see attached pdf for complete information". ORDER directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Susan R Bolton on 3/15/11. (TLJ)

Sullivan v. Ryan et al

Doc. 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Charles Ryan, et al. 13 Respondents. 14 15 16 vs. Gabriel James Sullivan, Petitioner,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV09-2415-PHX-SRB ORDER

Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 17 on November 18, 2009 raising three ground for relief: 1) violation of his Sixth Amendment 18 right of confrontation by the admission of a videotaped interview of the victim; 2) violation 19 of his Eighth Amendment rights because his 15-year prison sentence constituted cruel and 20 unusual punishment and; 3) violation of his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance 21 of counsel. On March 8, 2010, Respondents filed their Response to Petitioner's Petition for 22 Writ of Habeas Corpus. No reply was filed. On February 7, 2011, the Magistrate Judge 23 issued his Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied. . 24 In his Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they 25 had 14 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within 26 which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has 27 expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. 28

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 27 28

The Court has reviewed the petition, response and their attachments and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. The Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied on the merits of the claims raised in Grounds One and Two and denied on Ground Three based on procedural default IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying any Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 15th day of March, 2011.

-2-