From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pierce v. Romero

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Nov 20, 2007
CV 06-910 BB/CEG (D.N.M. Nov. 20, 2007)

Summary

finding petitioner who claimed ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to retain an expert witness was unable to show prejudice because "he failed to identify an expert capable of testifying favorably on his behalf that would alter the outcome"

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Hatch

Opinion

CV 06-910 BB/CEG.

November 20, 2007


ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION


The Magistrate Judge filed her Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on October 26, 2007. See Doc 20. The Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition recommends that the Court deny Pierce's § 2254 petition and dismiss this case with prejudice. Id. Pierce filed objections to the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition on November 7, 2007. See Doc. 21. The Court has carefully reviewed Pierce's objections de novo and finds them to be not well taken.

Wherefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1) the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition (Doc. 20) are adopted;
2) the Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is denied; and
3) civil case number 06-910 BB/CEG is dismissed with prejudice.


Summaries of

Pierce v. Romero

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Nov 20, 2007
CV 06-910 BB/CEG (D.N.M. Nov. 20, 2007)

finding petitioner who claimed ineffective assistance for counsel's failure to retain an expert witness was unable to show prejudice because "he failed to identify an expert capable of testifying favorably on his behalf that would alter the outcome"

Summary of this case from Wilson v. Hatch
Case details for

Pierce v. Romero

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER PIERCE, Petitioner, v. JOSE ROMERO, Warden, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Nov 20, 2007

Citations

CV 06-910 BB/CEG (D.N.M. Nov. 20, 2007)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Hatch

His prognostication that an expert might have cast doubt on the State's fingerprint evidence is insufficient…