Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01367/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01367-1/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

Lucinda Tomchee, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Charles Ryan, 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-1367-PHX-NVW (MHB)

ORDER

and 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate

Judge Burns (Doc. # 11) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the Petition be denied

and dismissed with prejudice. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had

fourteen days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 19 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). No

objections were filed.

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 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);

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.”). The absence of a

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“A

party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy

Case 2:09-cv-01367-NVW Document 12 Filed 05/12/10 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 -

[of the magistrate’s order]. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely

objected to.”); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps

v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-21 (9th Cir. 2002).

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and

finds that it is well taken. 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”).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. #11) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment denying and

dismissing petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. # 1) with prejudice. The Clerk shall terminate this action.

Having considered the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability from the order

denying Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court FINDS: Certificate of

Appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are Denied. Petitioner has

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Dated: May 12, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01367-NVW Document 12 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 2