Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00685/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00685-4/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

James McArthur Washington, Jr., 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al.,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-685-PHX-SMM (VAM)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Virginia A.

Mathis for Report and Recommendation. On December 5, 2006 the Magistrate Judge filed

a Report and Recommendation with this Court (Doc. 31), and Petitioner filed an objection

to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 32) on December 21, 2006.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “must

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made,”

and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the Magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d

1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454

(9th Cir. 1983)). Failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s recommendation relieves the Court

of conducting de novo review of the Magistrate Judge’s factual findings. Orand v. United

Case 2:06-cv-00685-SMM Document 33 Filed 01/08/07 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 -

States, 602 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Campbell v. United States Dist. Court, 501 F.2d

196 (9th Cir. 1974)); see also Barilla v. Ervin, 886 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1989) (overruled on

other grounds). A failure to object to a Magistrate Judge’s conclusion “is a factor to be

weighed in considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal.” Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing McCall v. Andrus, 628 F.2d 1185, 1187 (9th Cir.

1980)).

DISCUSSION

Having reviewed the 39-page Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

and Petitioner's objections thereto, this Court hereby incorporates and adopts the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation. The Court's review is a de novo one. The Report and

Recommendation is thorough and exhaustive. The factual findings are supported by the

record and the legal analyses are based on appropriate standards. Petitioner's restatements

do not raise any new issues not already addressed by the Magistrate Judge. Petitioner's

objections merely express his dissatisfaction with the Magistrate Judge's conclusions. The

record before the Court overwhelmingly demonstrates that Petitioner's petition must be

denied. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons set forth, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 31) and overrules Petitioner's objections. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 1) is denied, thereby terminating this case.

DATED this 5th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00685-SMM Document 33 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2