Opinion
No. CIV 05-1394-PHX-EHC (VAM).
January 6, 2006
ORDER
On May 11, 2005, Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 1]. On June 10, 2005, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. [Dkt. 4]. Respondents filed a Response to the Amended Pet it ion on September 19, 2005. [Dkts. 14, 15 16].
On November 16, 2005, Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis issued a Rep ort and Recommendation [Dkt. 21], recommending that Petitioner's Amended Petition be denied because Petitioner's claims are procedurally barred, Petitioner having failed to raise them in the two post-convict ion proceedings conducted in Maricopa County Superior Court pursuant to Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
On November 28, 2005, Petitioner filed an Objection. [Dkt. 22]. Petitioner argues that he should not be held responsible for his counsel's failure to raise his claims in his post-conviction proceedings before the Superior Court. Petitioner filed his petitions pro se in the two post-conviction proceedings held in Maricopa County Superior Court. [Dkt. 16, exs. I and MM]. Petitioner's counsel appointed for the post-conviction proceedings found no viable issues to raise on post-conviction review. [Dkt. 16, ex. M].
On December 23, 2005, Petitioner filed a Motion to Enforce Sanctions [Dkt. 23], informing that the Court that Respondents did not file a Response to his Objection.
A district court judge reviews de novo the Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
The Court having reviewed the record de novo, adopts in full the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and incorporates the same as a part of this Order.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted in full. [Dkt. 21].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. [Dkt. 4].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion to Enforce Sanct ions [Dkt. 23] is DENIED.