Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02083/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-02083-1/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 

Marco Antonio Salazar, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-15-02083-PHX-DLR

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Petitioner Marco A. Salazar’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus and United States Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle’s Report and Recommendation 

(R&R). Docs. 1, 16. The R&R recommends that the Court deny the Petition. Doc. 16 at 

5. The Magistrate Judge advised the parties that they had fourteen 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. at 6 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; United States v. 

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)). Petitioner 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 well-taken. The Court will accept the R&R and 

Case 2:15-cv-02083-DLR Document 17 Filed 06/06/16 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 

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.”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Boyle’s R&R, Doc. 16, is ACCEPTED. 

Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 1, is DENIED and DISMISSED 

WITH PREJUDICE. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability and leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal are DENIED because the dismissal of the Petition is 

justified by a plain procedural bar and reasonable jurists would not find the ruling 

debatable, and because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall terminate this 

case. 

 Dated this 6th day of June, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge 

Case 2:15-cv-02083-DLR Document 17 Filed 06/06/16 Page 2 of 2