Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02095/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02095-2/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

John Christopher Musselman, 

Petitioner, 

v.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-02095 PHX NVW (JCG)

ORDER

Pending before the court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate

Judge Jennifer C. Guerin (Doc. # 14) regarding petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1). The R&R recommends that the

Petition be denied as to Grounds 2 and 4 and that Respondents be afforded 30 days in which

to supplement their Answser with respect to Gounds 1 and 3 of the Petition. The Magistrate

Judge advised the parties that they had ten days to file objections to the R&R. (R&R at 6-7

(citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)). No objections were filed.

Because the parties did not file objections, the court need not review any of the

Magistrate Judge’s determinations on dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003);

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.”). The absence of a

timely objection also means that error may not be assigned on appeal to any defect in the

rulings of the Magistrate Judge on any non-dispositive matters. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

Case 2:05-cv-02095-NVW Document 15 Filed 04/10/07 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 -

(“Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s order, a party may

serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in

the magistrate judge’s order to which objection was not timely made.”); Simpson v. Lear

Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); Philipps v. GMC, 289 F.3d 1117, 1120-

21 (9th Cir. 2002).

Notwithstanding the absence of an objection, the court has reviewed the R&R and

finds that it is well taken. The court will accept the R&R, dismiss the Petition as to Grounds

2 and 4, and give Respondents 30 days to supplement their Answer as to Grounds 1 and 3.

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”). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge (Doc. #14) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. # 1) is denied as to Grounds 2 and 4 only. Judgment will

not be entered denying relief on Grounds 2 and 4 until disposition of Grounds 1 and 3. This

is not a final or appealable order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall have 30 days from this date to

supplement their Answer in order to respond to the merits of Grounds 1 and 3 of the Petition.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is referred to Magistrate Jennifer C.

Guerin for further proceedings and preparation of a Report and Recommendation concerning

Grounds 1 and 3.

DATED this 9th day of April 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02095-NVW Document 15 Filed 04/10/07 Page 2 of 2