Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00787/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00787-0/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 

Edward Micheal Foose, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et 

al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-00787-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”). Docs. 10, 18. The R&R recommends that the Court deny 

the Petition and dismiss with prejudice. Doc. 18 at 16. The Magistrate Judge advised the 

parties that they had fourteen 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 16 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, 6(a), 6(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 novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly 

Case 2:14-cv-00787-GMS Document 19 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is welltaken. The Court will accept the R&R and deny the Second Amended Petition and 

dismiss with prejudice. 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 Burns’s R&R (Doc. 18) is accepted. 

 2. Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 10) 

is denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

 3. Petitioner’s Motion for Ruling (Doc. 17) is moot. 

 4. The Clerk of Court shall terminate this action and enter judgment 

accordingly. 

 5. Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the 

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability 

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

 Dated this 26th day of May, 2015. 

Honorable G. Murray Snow

United States District Judge

Case 2:14-cv-00787-GMS Document 19 Filed 05/26/15 Page 2 of 2