Patterson v. Ryan et al
| Maurice Patterson |
| Charles L Ryan and Arizona Attorney General, State of |
| 2:2009cv02187 |
| October 16, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Phoenix Division Office |
| Yuma |
| David K Duncan (PS) |
| James A Teilborg |
| None |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
29
ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that the 27 Report and Recommendation is accepted andadopted, the objections (Doc. 28 ) are overruled, and the Petition (Doc. 1 ) is denied, with prejudice, and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. FURTH ER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court denies issuance of a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 11/15/10. (SAT)
|
|
Filing
27
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS RECOMMENDED that Maurice Patterson's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State/2254) be denied and dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal be denied because dismissal of the Petition is justified by a plain procedural bar and jurists of reason would not find the ruling debatable. Signed by Magistrate Judge David K Duncan on 10/27/10. (SAT)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
