Benson v. Haynes

Full title: James F. Benson, Petitioner, v. D.W. Haynes, et al., Respondents

Court: United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Nov 3, 2005

CIV 04-1339-PCT-EHC (ECV) (D. Ariz. Nov. 3, 2005)

Opinion

CIV 04-1339-PCT-EHC (ECV).

November 3, 2005

ORDER

EARL CARROLL, Senior District Judge

On June 28, 2004, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 1). On August 3, 2004, an Amended Petition was filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Dkt. 4). On November 8, 2004, a Response was filed . (Dkt. 8). Petitioner filed a Reply on December 15, 2004. (Dkt. 9). Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss issued a Report and Recommendation October 13, 2005. (Dkt. 14). Petitioner filed a "Motion of Response to Report and Recommendation" October 21, 2005 which the Court construes as an Objection. (Dkt. 16).

STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court judge reviews de novo the Report and Recommendation of a Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 1.15(b), Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

DISCUSSION

The Court having reviewed the record de novo, including the Objection (Response), 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. 14).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Amended Petition is denied and dismissed without prejudice. (Dkt. 4).