Summary
stating that it is not clear which harmless error test applies to a Blakely claim brought in a § 2254 habeas petition
Summary of this case from Barney v. ConwayOpinion
No. CV 06-1679-PCT-MHM.
September 30, 2008
ORDER
Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on July 5, 2006, claiming his sentence imposed was in violation of his constitutional rights. On November 1, 2006, Respondents filed their response to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. On August 14, 2008, the Magistrate Judge issued her Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied.
In her Report and Recommendation the Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had 10 days from the date of service of a copy of the Report and Recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. The time to file such objections has long since expired and no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).
After a complete and independent review of the issues presented, the Court finds itself in agreement with the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge as the order of this Court [Doc. 12].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed with prejudice [Doc. 1].
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly.