Harris v. Ryan et al

Filing 15

ORDER - The Magistrate Judge's 14 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted by the Court. The petitioner's Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied as time-barred an d is dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue and that leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because dismissal of the habeas petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 12/14/2015. (ATD)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Dwayne Gregory Harris,
10

Petitioner,
11

vs.
12

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,
13

Respondents.
14
15

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

No. CV-14-01741-PHX-PGR (MHB)
ORDER

16

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

17

Burns notwithstanding that no party has filed any objection to the Report and

18

Recommendation, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that the

19

petitioner’s habeas petition, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be dismissed with

20

prejudice as time-barred inasmuch as it was filed over two years after the expiration of the

21

one-year statute of limitations of the AEDPA and the petitioner has made no showing that

22

the limitations period should be equitably tolled. Therefore,

23
24
25
26

IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14)
is accepted and adopted by the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for
a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied as time-barred and

1

is dismissed with prejudice.

2

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

3

leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because dismissal of the habeas petition is

4

justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling

5

debatable.

6
7
8

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

DATED this 14th day of December, 2015.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

-2-