Adrian #150015 v. Ryan

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 25 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is Denied and this action is dismissed. The Clerk of the Cou rt shall enter judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and rea sonable jurists would not find the ruling debatable, and, further, to the extent petitioner's claims also are rejected on the merits, reasonable jurists would not find the Court's assessment of the constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 5/11/15. (LSP)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Martin Sarmiento Adrian,
Petitioner,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-13-01920-PHX-PGR

Charles L. Ryan,

13

Respondent.

14
15

The Court having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 25) of

16
17
18
19
20

Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf, filed on March 17, 2015, notwithstanding that no
party has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc.
25) is accepted and adopted by the Court.

21
22

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

23

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is Denied and that this action is

24

dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

25
26

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

27

and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because dismissal of the

28

Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the

1
2

ruling debatable, and, further, to the extent petitioner’s claims also are rejected on the
merits, reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s assessment of the constitutional

3
4
5

claims to be debatable or wrong.
Dated this 11th day of May, 2015.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-