Conroy v. Ryan et al

Filing 35

ORDER Therefore, pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, IT IS ORDERED ACCEPTING the recommended decision of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 34 ) and DENYING and DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1 ). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable, and because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick J Martone on 3/6/2014. (KMG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
Raymond J. Conroy,
9
Petitioner,
10
vs.
11
12
13

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-12-02593-PHX-FJM
ORDER

14
The court has before it petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
15
U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents’ response (doc. 18), petitioner’s reply (doc. 28). We also
16
have before us the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
17
recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with
18
prejudice (doc. 34). No objections were filed.
19
Therefore, pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, IT IS ORDERED
20
ACCEPTING the recommended decision of the Magistrate Judge (doc. 34) and DENYING
21
and DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE the petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1).
22
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed
23
in forma pauperis on appeal are denied because dismissal of the petition is justified by a
24
plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable, and because
25
petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
26
27
28

DATED this 6th day of March, 2014.