Gaddis v. Ryan et al

Filing 21

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 16 Report and Recommendation, 20 Report and Recommendation. That the petitioner's 12 Motion to Stay Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. That the petitioner's First Amended Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 6) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice. That no certificate of appealability shall be issued. That the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 11/13/12. (DMT)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Matthew Caine Gaddis,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

vs.
Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-11-01769-PHX-PGR (JFM)

ORDER

15
16

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation on Motion to Stay

17

(Doc. 16) and Report and Recommendation on Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

18

(Doc. 20), both issued by Magistrate Judge James Metcalf, notwithstanding that no

19

party has objected to either Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that the

20

Magistrate Judge correctly concluded, first, that the petitioner has not established

21

that he is entitled to a stay of this action in order to exhaust state remedies, second,

22

that the petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed pursuant to

23

28 U.S.C. § 2254, must be denied because the petitioner’s federal claims are all

24

procedurally defaulted given that he failed to fairly present them to the state courts

25

and cannot now do so, he has failed to proffer any good cause to excuse the

26

procedural default, and he has not made any claim of actual innocence, and third,

1

that the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability

2

because he has not demonstrated that jurists of reason would find it debatable

3

whether his amended petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional

4

right or whether jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Court is correct

5

in its procedural ruling. Therefore,

6

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on

7

Motion to Stay (Doc. 16) and Report and Recommendation on Petition for Writ of

8

Habeas Corpus (Doc. 20) are both accepted and adopted by the Court.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Motion to Stay Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 12) is denied.

11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s First Amended Petition Under

12

28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc.

13

6) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment

16
17

accordingly.
DATED this 13th day of November, 2012.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-