Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01689/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01689-1/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

 

 Petitioner Martin Recio has filed a Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 11). The Honorable John Z. Boyle, United 

States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 25), 

recommending that the Court deny the Petition. Judge Boyle advised the parties that they 

had fourteen (14) 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.); 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72; 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 

objected to.”). The Court has nonetheless reviewed the R&R and finds that it is wellMartin Recio, 

 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Unknown Party, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

No. CV-15-01689-PHX-SPL

ORDER 

Case 2:15-cv-01689-SPL Document 26 Filed 11/08/16 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 

taken. The Court will adopt the R&R and deny 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.”). Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED:

1. That Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

25) is accepted and adopted by the Court; 

2. That the Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 11) is denied and this action is dismissed with prejudice; 

3. That a certificate of appealability and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on 

appeal are denied; and 

4. That the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

 Dated this 8th day of November, 2016.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Case 2:15-cv-01689-SPL Document 26 Filed 11/08/16 Page 2 of 2