From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barger v. Ryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jan 25, 2012
No. CV-11-8034-PCT-FJM (D. Ariz. Jan. 25, 2012)

Opinion

No. CV-11-8034-PCT-FJM

01-25-2012

Edward James Barger, Petitioner, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.


ORDER

The court has before it petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. 1), respondents' answer (doc. 15), and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice (doc. 16). The petitioner did not object to the Report and Recommendation and the time for doing so has expired.

Pursuant to Rule 8(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, we accept the recommended decision of the United States Magistrate Judge. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING AND DISMISSING with prejudice the petition for writ of habeas corpus (doc. 1).

Because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and because 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 DENYING a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

__________________

Frederick J. Martone

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Barger v. Ryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jan 25, 2012
No. CV-11-8034-PCT-FJM (D. Ariz. Jan. 25, 2012)
Case details for

Barger v. Ryan

Case Details

Full title:Edward James Barger, Petitioner, v. Charles L. Ryan, et al., Respondents.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Date published: Jan 25, 2012

Citations

No. CV-11-8034-PCT-FJM (D. Ariz. Jan. 25, 2012)

Citing Cases

Rolling Mill Co. v. Ore and Steel Co.

The correctness of that ruling depended altogether upon the proper construction of the Illinois statute; and…

General Motors Accep. Corp. v. Vaughn

The cause of action is not joint in the Vaughns but was personal to the minor Vaughn, and could not be…