Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02075/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02075-1/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

1

The caption of the August 29, 2006 Report and Recommendation, was corrected to read:

Ernest Trujillo, et al., Respondents. The July 21, 2006 Report and Recommendation incorrectly

identified Charles L. Ryan as the Respondent. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Eric Lee Flanders, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Ernest Trujillo, et al.,

Respondents. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-04-2075-PHX-SMM (JJM)

ORDER

On July 21, 2006, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall filed a Report and

Recommendation [Doc. No. 13], advising this Court that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus should be dismissed with prejudice. On August 29, 2006, Judge Marshall filed

an amended Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 14], which corrected the caption, but

otherwise remained identical to the July 21, 2006 Report and Recommendation.1

 To date,

Plaintiff has not filed objections to either of Judge Marshall’s Report and Recommendations.

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 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391,

Case 2:04-cv-02075-SMM Document 15 Filed 09/14/06 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 -

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

1983)). 

By failing to object to a Report and Recommendation, a party waives his right to

challenge the Magistrate’s factual findings, but not necessarily the Magistrate’s legal

conclusions. Baxter, 923 F.2d at 1394; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.

1998) (failure to object to Magistrate’s legal conclusion “is a factor to be weighed in

considering the propriety of finding waiver of an issue on appeal”); 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 legal conclusions of the Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge, and no objections having been made by Plaintiff thereto, the Court hereby

incorporates and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth, 

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

of Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall. [Doc. No. 14 ]

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

[Doc. No. 1] and this action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court

shall terminate this action accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this

Order to all parties as well as to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Marshall.

DATED this 13th day of September, 2006.

Case 2:04-cv-02075-SMM Document 15 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 2