Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01708/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01708-2/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

Gerardo Navejas De La Cruz, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Warden Hetner, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-01708-PHX-NVW (LOA)

ORDER

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

Judge Anderson (doc. # 21) 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 ten

days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 9 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). Petitioner has

filed objections (doc. # 22) that are difficult to understand fully. Petitioner appears to argue

that not all of his grounds are addressed in the R&R. Ground II was dismissed in the

screening order (doc. # 9, p. 10) as not raising a federal claim. In addition, it was not raised

in Petitioner’s state court petition for post-conviction relief, and no contention is made that

that default is excused. The remaining Ground I, sentencing allegedly in violation of Blakely

v. Washington, 524 U.S. 296 (2004), lacks merits for the reasons discussed in the R&R.

The court has considered the objections and reviewed the Report and

Recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (stating that the

court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and

Case 2:06-cv-01708-NVW Document 24 Filed 08/29/07 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 -

Recommendation to which specific objections are made). The court agrees with the

Magistrate Judge's determinations, accepts the recommended decision within the meaning

of Rule 72(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., and overrules Petitioner's objections. 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”).

Insofar as the Magistrate Judge also ruled on any non-dispositive matters, error may

not be assigned to any defect in those rulings to the extent that an aggrieved party did not file

a timely objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“Within 10 days after being served with a copy of

the magistrate judge’s order, a party may serve and file objections to the order; a party may

not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge’s order to which objection was

not timely made.”). The absence of a timely objection precludes later assignment of error

in this court or in any higher court of the non-dispositive rulings of a magistrate judge.

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). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (doc. # 21) is accepted.

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

petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (doc. # 1).

The Clerk shall terminate this action

DATED this 29th day of August 2007.

.

Case 2:06-cv-01708-NVW Document 24 Filed 08/29/07 Page 2 of 2