Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00881/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00881-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Theron Block, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles L. Ryan, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV08-881-PHX-DGC (BPV)

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Petitioner Mark Theron Block’s petition for writ of

habeas corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco’s Report and

Recommendation (“R&R”). Dkt. ##1, 13. The R&R recommends that the Court dismiss

the petition because Petitioner has procedurally defaulted both claims asserted in Grounds

One and Two of his petition and Petitioner has not established cause for his procedural

default for either claim. Dkt. #13 at 13. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they

had ten days to file objections to the R&R and that failure to file timely objections could be

considered a waiver of the right to obtain review of the R&R. Id. at 14 (citing 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.

2003)).

The parties did not file objections, which relieves the Court of its obligation to review

the R&R. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985)

(“[Section 636(b)(1)] does not . . . require any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the

subject of an objection.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge must determine de

Case 2:08-cv-00881-DGC Document 14 Filed 12/04/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”) The

Court will accept the R&R and dismiss the Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that

the district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may

accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return

the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Magistrate Judge Bernardo P. Velasco’s R&R (Dkt. #13) is accepted.

2. Petitioner Mark Theron Black’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. #1) is

dismissed.

3. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action.

DATED this 3rd day of December, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-00881-DGC Document 14 Filed 12/04/09 Page 2 of 2