Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02386/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02386-1/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

Ricky Napier, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-02386-PHX-ROS

ORDER

On December 2, 2010, Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey issued a Report and

Recommendation (“R & R”) on Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 21).

On December 13, 2010, Petitioner filed a document stating he objected to the Magistrate

Judge’s conclusions and he needed more time to file additional objections. Petitioner was

directed to file his objections no later than February 1, 2011. Petitioner did not file any

further objections by that date. 

A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Where any party has

filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendations, the district

court’s review of the part objected to is to be de novo. Id. If, however, no objections are

filed, the district court need not conduct such a review. Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp.

2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003). Objections must be specific. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

“[G]eneral, non-specific objections” are not sufficient to require the District Court “conduct

Case 2:09-cv-02386-ROS Document 24 Filed 02/25/11 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 -

de novo review of the entire R & R.” Sullivan v. Schriro, 2006 WL 1516005 (D. Ariz.).

Because Petitioner did not file any “specific written objections” to the R & R, the R & R will

be adopted in full. Fed. R. Civ. P. 75(b)(2).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 21) is ADOPTED. The

request for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. The Clerk shall close this case.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED a Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. Petitioner

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

DATED this 25th day of February, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-02386-ROS Document 24 Filed 02/25/11 Page 2 of 2