Gould #259052 v. Ryan et al

Filing 22

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21 ) 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 and that this action is dismissed wi th prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not be issued and leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because the petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and becaus e the dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the procedural ruling debatable. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Senior Judge Paul G Rosenblatt on 1/24/2017. (REK)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10

Algene Royce Gould,
Petitioner,

11
12
13
14

vs.
Charles Ryan, et al.,
Respondents.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-15-08124-PCT-PGR (MHB)
ORDER

16

Having reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate

17

Judge Burns, filed August 12, 2016, notwithstanding that no objection to the Report

18

and Recommendation has been filed, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge

19

correctly concluded that the petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed

20

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, should be denied. Therefore,

21
22

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is accepted and
adopted by the Court.

23

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

24

2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is denied and that

25

this action is dismissed with prejudice.

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall not be

1

issued and leave to appeal in forma pauperis is denied because the petitioner has

2

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because

3

the dismissal of the petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason

4

would not find the procedural ruling debatable.

5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment
accordingly.
DATED this 24th day of January, 2017.

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

-2-