Crawford v. Ryan et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 13 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Petitioner Mark D. Crawford's (Second 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 th is action is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because jurists of reason would neither find it debatable whether the petitioner has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor whether the Court is correct in its procedural ruling. The Clerk shall enter judgment. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/11/15. (LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Mark D. Crawford,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14
15

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

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-13-00531-PHX-PGR (MEA)
ORDER

16

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

17

Judge Aspey notwithstanding that no party has filed any objections to the Report and

18

Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined

19

that the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition, originally filed on March 13, 2013

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed as time-barred because this

21

action was commenced more than five years after the AEDPA’s one-year statute of

22

limitations expired in mid-2007, and the petitioner has made no showing that the

23

limitations period should be equitably tolled. Therefore,

24
25
26

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(Doc.13) is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner Mark D. Crawford’s [Second

1

Amended] Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person

2

in State Custody (Doc. 6) is denied and that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and

4

that the petitioner is denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis because jurists of

5

reason would neither find it debatable whether the petitioner has made a substantial

6

showing of the denial of a constitutional right nor whether the Court is correct in its

7

procedural ruling.

8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 11th day of May, 2015.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-